Charlie Bartlett

If one might criticize Juno for having dialog that is not reflective of the way teenagers speak, then Charlie Bartlett can be criticized for not having dialog that reflects how teenagers speak and in addition the people involved don't seem to know anything about how teenagers act, socialize or do anything else. The film doesn't seem to reflect any reality of high school at all. Now granted I haven't been in high school for a while but it has been less than a decade and I find it hard to believe that things have changed so much that I couldn't even recognize the general thematic elements.

Charlie (Anton Yelchin) has just been kicked out of private school and his mother (Hope Davis) has decided to send him to public school. There Charlie faces the problems of popularity, being beaten up by the school bully and his attraction to a girl in the school. And it doesn't treat one of these situations with anything resembling a reality. The school bully apparently just wants to be liked and pines after the popular cheerleader. The object of affection girl is edgy and goes her own way. Basically any high school movie cliche you can think of you get represented here.

And if all the movie wanted to be was an imaginary take on high schools along the lines of Ferris Bueller's Day Off or something I guess I could have respected it a little. Even Yelchin's deliver seems entirely beholden to Matthew Broderick. But this movie wants to tackle bigger issue such as teenage medication like Ritalin, suicide, alcoholism and right to privacy. And in the end it just feels like a slightly better budgeted after school special.

Beyond the smattering of boring teenage talent that inhabits this movie, there are two decent actors who have been caught up in the train wreck. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the father of one of the students and is the principal of the school who is an alcoholic (but never at school (apparently making it okay)) and who has apparently at one time or another brandished a gun with his young daughter in the room. Not only is the character uninteresting and played fairly blandly by Downey,Jr. the way it treats his problems so weakly and without conviction is really unsettling.

Hope Davis as Charlie's mom is slightly better off. She clearly seems to have some self medicating issues of her own (there were very few scenes she didn't have a glass of wine in hand). Still her laissez faire attitude to raising Charlie has left him confused but she delivers some spot on funny lines in the early scenes. So in general she is about the only bright spot in the entire film. And yet even she can't save the final act which is generally insulting and poorly plotted. In the end I can't even be sure what the message of this film was supposed to be (but I suspect there was supposed to be one).

Vantage Point

In a plaza in Spain, the President (William Hurt) is about to give a speech to kick off a conference on anti-terrorism. Suddenly he is shot and a series of explosions rock the plaza. Witness to this event are several secret service men, a local Spanish police officer, an American tourist, an American news service and several of the terrorists involved. Thus the conceit and gimmick of the film is to repeatedly see the events each from their own unique "vantage point". Get it?

As a feat of production magic I'll give some credit to the person who coordinated the various intricacies of the story to tie each storyline together. But that's it, that's all I'm giving this horrible mess of boring. Pretty much from the first jump back to another point of view, I was annoyed. From the way they start every pov with a clock ticking away like the show "24", to the way each pov is ended by a rewind back to the arbitrary moment of 12:00, I was irritated and bored.

And don't think for a minute that there is anything beyond the gimmick. Because there really isn't. Just about every plot development you could imagine is telegraphed so blatantly that not one reveal in the entire movie is actually a surprise. Was this really the best they could do? What did the creators think lack of good story telling could be obscured by a cheap trick? Well actually that is probably exactly what they thought.

Apparently a handful of good actors had a desire to get a new car or build a new addition on the house. This is the usual reason as I understand it that actors of quality star in films that aren't fit to be used as bathroom tissue. And this film boasts not one but two! Academy award winning actors. For crying out loud, Mr. Hurt, you have four Academy Award nominations! And Mr. Whittaker, you were sherely brilliant as Idi Amin. Nothing of their talent shows up here.

And on the bad acting bandwagon, we've got Dennis Quaid and Jack Shepard...er Matthew Fox. Both are so wooden that its just embarrassing to watch. I don't even know what else to say. I was as tempted as I've ever been to walk out out of complete boredom but I was curious to see where this train wreck ended up? Remember how I said all it had was its gimmick? Well it doesn't even have that. A little over half way through the film, the gimmick collapses into a more traditional narrative.

How bad of an idea do you have when you can't even maintain the one thing that makes it novel? Not to mention that the finale requires such a intersection of coincidences and machinations of fate that it seems clear the writer just stopped caring. I shouldn't be so cavalier with these ad hominem attacks but I've seen bad movies and I've seen bad movies that aren't trying and this is clearly in the latter category.

In Bruges

After a botched hit, Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) are ordered by their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes) to get out of London and go to the Belgian city of Bruges. Bruges is a idyllic town with much of its old medieval architecture still around. The duo are instructed to stay for two weeks and to act like tourists. Ray a Dublin born eternal urbanite takes this news bitterly. He complains and acts petulantly and is only interested when he sees that someone is filming a movie that stars in his words "a midget". Ken older and more wizened to the world finds a glorious tranquility in Bruges and its beauty while dealing like a disapproving father to Ray's behavior.

In Bruges is Martin McDonagh's feature debut. He is a celebrated Irish playwright who seems to have a way with dialog. The core of the film and its best scenes are those that occur between unhappy Ray and patient Ken. There banter is at times playful and humorous at others more harmful. Farrell and Gleeson have a generally good chemistry. Oddly enough or perhaps not the actually casting here adds another element. Farrell's face framed by his bushy eyebrows adds a strong level of believability to his poutiness. Gleeson's older grim features are perfect for his constant displays of delight.

Farrell's portrayal is quite striking. Its subdued and walks a delicate balance between his disdain for the city of Bruges and his own inner demons. He has a charming crassness as he attempts to woo a local woman by telling her he hates her city or when he can't control his thuggish behavior. Gleeson has a sort of gentleness to him that belies a ever present dangerousness. Even Ralph Fiennes is enjoyable with the exception of his horrendous accent which seems to be Fiennes best attempt at imitating Bob Hoskins as a gangster (from Long Good Friday perhaps).

But despite some fine dialog and some well acted scenes, the film isn't without serious problems. Tone for one. It jumps back and forth between a more traditional style fish out of water comedy and more serious discursives on the nature of sin and life. There's the gangster feel and the romance and all this degenerates into a action thriller chase by movie's end. The violence is harsh and bloody with lots of graphic bullet hole head wounds and the like. Most of these elements work in theory or even in the individual scenes but when thread together with other scenes it all gets to be a bit too much. Like its unsure what kind of movie it wants to be.

Pacing is a bit awkward as well and some of the plot elements are so obviously inserted that you know they will have bearing on the finale. All this adds up and overpowers the enjoyment one is getting out of the film. Its as if someone just needs to go to Martin and say calm down, its good but a bit much. Tone it down a little. Still as a first feature length film it has a lot to be admired and presuming he learns from some of his mistakes a future film will be much better. And as I said for me the relationship between Ray and Ken was worth the price of admission.

The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford

It's a bit on the strange side that I managed to fit in one final film before the Oscar show last night, thus permitting me to say that I had seen all the best supporting actor nominations. It also allowed me to say I had seen all the cinematography nominees as well. I guess what is odd is not that I saw it but that it was so fresh in my mind that it seemed like a travesty of justice that "Assassination" didn't win the award for best cinematography. And I know I'm open to criticism because I saw this film literally right before the show but let me give you some more data. I saw "No Country For Old Men" four times in the theater. I saw "There Will Be Blood" and "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" each twice. I saw "Atonement" only once I admit. Not a one of these films wasn't visually beautiful.

But "Assassination" was the most consistently beautiful and perhaps the most beautifully shot film of anything I saw released in 2007. Hell of the films I saw last year the only one that might actually be more beautiful was Andrei Tarkovsky's "Ivan's Childhood". And I think testament to how well it was filmed is that I could gauge this not on the big screen or after multiple viewings (I tend to be a story/character detailed viewer) but on my television after just one viewing. Who would have thought, this shot needs a fish eye lens? I would submit to you the only exhibit you will need to judge this film is visually off the charts.

Jesse James (Brad Pitt) and his gang are fixing to rob the Blue Cut Train line. They've piled a barricade on the tracks and along comes the train. As it turns the bend in the dark night, its headlamp leaves merely a shadow of Jesse as he walks ahead of the train onto the barricade. The train brakes and we see a close up of the engine and then back to Jesse standing atop the barricade. The train stops on the spot billowing steam which rushes forth concealing Jesse and the whole screen. My words can do it no justice but I re-watched it two or three times just to marvel in how well it was done.

"Assassination" picks up in Jesse's life not in his heyday but rather near the end. We are introduced to the film with a gentle voiced narrator who utters factoids in an almost awestruck way. For in part this film is dealing with the establishment of mythos and cult of personality that surrounds Jesse James. I'm typically not one for voice over but this time it so contrasts with what we see that its hard to grip with at first. Is this about heroization? Or deheroization? Does our insight into Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) tell us anything interesting?

The story follows mainly Ford and his interaction with James in the final year of his life. Despite reservation by Jesse's brother Frank (Sam Shepard), Jesse takes Ford into his company. Ford is a bit on the obsessive side when it comes to what he knows and thinks he knows about Jesse. That this obsession will eventually lead to murder is not that big of a leap. Bob is frequently teased and mocked for his obsession by his brother, his friends and even by Jesse himself. The film itself falls into three parts of varying length. The opening establishes our characters and our story. The end is coda to Jesse as it follows Ford from his (in)famous job to the end of his life. The middle is a long discursive that I suspect tries the patience of many viewers.

But I would argue it is this middle that holds together what would otherwise be just a series of pretty shots and a fairly interesting narrative. It is Bob Ford's obsessive nature and his family life and everything else that is developed here. His understandable paranoia complicated by the already mythic level of the Jesse James Persona. At the same time we seem to see an increasing paranoia in Jesse either. One not so clearly understood. His behavior is erratic at times destructive. There are certainly some times when the myth seems to be reinforced by preternatural sense of wrong but this doesn't stop him from keeping association with the Ford brothers.

The coda which occurs after the titular act of the title deals with the public response to Ford's action. The notion of infamy arising instead of fame and the remorse of betrayal are laid out in a neat patter while our mythic narrator remains and comments on Ford's life. It de-constructs or perhaps constructs its own mythos about Ford. Not a coward but rather a bullied weak willed boy who found solace in the myth of Jesse which couldn't live up to the reality. Perhaps a traitor but the implication that he himself would be killed by Jesse was never absent.

Affleck's Ford is equal parts vulnerable and creepy. His eager introduction followed by almost unnoticed rejection is brilliant. Equally brilliant is his introduction to Frank James. Shepard's Frank plays off him brilliantly picking up on the unease and taking dislike to him right off. Pitt's more taciturn Pitt is quite aware of his mythos and seems party intrigued by Ford. A handful of recognizable faces round out a very well constructed cast including Sam Rockwell and Garret Dillahunt. But Affleck really shines here more so than his fine performance in "Gone Baby Gone".

Well acted and exceptionally well shot are pretty good as recommendations but what I found fascinating obviously was an incredibly intricate notion of legend and its pitfalls that I guess had the academic in my fascinated. Add in the way it riffs on the traditional Western plot lines in a fairly creative way (and westerns were staples of my cinematic adolescence) and this one quickly earns a spot in my top favorite films of last year.

Marty - Winner 1955

Marty is the story of a Marty (Ernest Borgnine) a butcher in New York City who lives with his mother and seems to be a perpetual bachelor. He's from a particularly recognizable Italian family cliche with multiple brothers and sisters. He gets hassled by the women who come for their cuts of meat about when he will get married. Marty is close to fed up with the idea of constantly seeking a wife. He's a husky guy without a glamorous job, who spends his Saturday nights hanging with his best friend doing little more than drinking beer and watching tv.

Convinced by his insistent mother and his friend, Marty goes to a dance hall to meet women. While there a particularly disgusting guy who happens to have been set up on a blind date with Clara (Betsy Blair) tries to ditch her. Marty observes all this and ends up approaching Clara. The two dance and hit it off and end up spending a long walk talking to each other. The film follows one night with them and shows how his friend and mother act negatively towards her and pressure Marty to not see her again.

This is an amazingly charming romance. The leads while not ugly (this is Hollywood after all) aren't the most dazzling beautiful stars of the era. Borgnine excels as the down on his luck loser who recognizes his lot in life and just wants some one to share it with. Blair is equally compelling as a teacher who has been unable to shake a constant labeling as a "dog". The two falling for each other and watching their awkward interactions is deeply satisfying. (Mayhaps I'm projecting, which is entirely possible but then that just means the film speaks to me more).

Actually I couldn't help but think through most of the film, in what world is Betsy Blair a dog? But whatever, narrative leap of faith I guess. Still I couldn't help but grin like a fool as Marty walked with Clara and kept talking, never letting up. When he realizes this he attempts to engage her and ends up once again talking without end. His nervousness was charming and his good naturedness was charming. And you can't help but cheer at his last minute realization of what an idiot he's being.

Persepolis

I've never been much for animated features. This may be because even when touting that they are for mass audiences ultimately the are still for kids. No amount of self aware pop culture referencing is enough to balance a mediocre narrative which is designed to get kids to laugh. Mainly I suspect this is the old curmudgeon in me who just refuses to accept animation as real movie making. The other extreme is the anime trend of hyper stylized adult stories which have also tended to inspire a yawn from me more than anything else. Perhaps I should have been looking for years at Europe where there seems to be genuine interest in telling both compelling narratives and doing interesting things with visual representation.

Persepolis an autobiographical account of the life of Marjane Satrapi based on her graphic novels, follows Marjane and her life from the Iranian revolution, through the Iran-Iraq war and her time spent in Europe as well as her return. Marjane grew up in a family of educated modern idealist thinkers who opposed the Shah and saw great potential in the revolution. Only to see that potential replaced by an even more dangerous regime of Islamic fundamentalism. We see Marjane caught up in the fervor of the revolution especially thanks to her uncle and her disillusionment when he is put to death. We see the danger of the constant bombings during the Iran-Iraq war and the increasingly oppressive government.

Eventually Marjane's parents send her to Europe to study in Austria to keep her safe. There she falls into a state of uncertainty about who she is and has a series of life defining events such as heartbreak and cultural uneasiness with nihilistic viewpoints. Unable to put up with this continued life, she returns to Iran and attempts to resume her life there. The story is an interesting one following a young idealistic girl through a difficult time in her country's history. It is well told and well acted. It is sincerely funny at times but also sad to the point of heartbreaking at others.

But beyond its narrative force, its also a highly visual film. Foregoing the trend of cgi rendered 3d modeling, the animation is more traditional. This works amazingly especially when showing scenes of stark contrast with silhouetted men and women. The black and white lends itself both to the idea of flashback reflection. In the end I found it to be quite a compelling story with quite a bit of interesting visuals. And the first animated film I've seen in some time that I truly enjoyed and didn't even really think of as being animated.

Diary of the Dead

George Romero has returned again with the fifth film in a franchise he pioneered starting with Night of the Living Dead. Romero has also returned to his indie roots. He moved away from the large scale budgets and Hollywood machine that helped him produce Land of the Dead and has instead financed it independently and cast unknowns in the leads. In addition the film becomes the second in less than a month to use the "document it as it happens" conception. Cloverfield had such a jerky camera that even I had a headache by the time the auditorium lights were raised and luckily Diary of the Dead is not nearly that erratic.

A group of student film makers is out in the woods filming a low budget horror film with their professor when they hear news that the dead have returned to life and are attacking the living. The group immediately leaves the woods and after a short detour to pick up one of the group's girlfriend, they are off in a Winnebago heading to said girlfriend's home to check on her parents. One of the group decides that this all needs to be documented and studiously takes on the task. They have run ins with zombies and various elements of decaying society as the zombie apocalypse runs rampant.

Much like the camera man in Cloverfield, the cameraman in this film feels the need to be totally objective something close to 99% of the time and refuses to help his friends even when his actions could have saved them. This like all Romero's zombie films of course has a message. Of course in his more successful attempts the message is more subtle (never completely subtle but definitely more subtle). Here the message about the advent of viral video, what isn't recorded never happened and online social phenomena is overbearing. Not just because its quite clear from the actions and the footage but also because the characters can't shut the hell up about it. They constantly have to discuss it.

The film acts as little more than a gimmick which is made the dumber by adding a second found camera and occasionally edited in security footage. The film gets quite boring quite fast. The story telling is lazy and the dialog is generally atrocious. There is nothing that saves this movie from terrible but there were two things a generally enjoyed. The first is a mute Amish man the group encounters who aids them which had me in fits of laughter (perhaps not Romero's intent). The second involves a zombie and a jar of sulfuric acid in what I now consider the coolest zombie death that I have ever seen (granted no one in the theater shared my opinion as I was cackling with glee and the rest were stoically watching the film).

So as much as I enjoyed Romero's early zombie films, I think he needs to retire gracefully and let the fan boys do the work. I think they will end up doing a better job.

Why Hal Holbrook Should Win The Oscar

I've already discoursed a little on why Hal Holbrook's performance in Into the Wild was one of the best of the year. I've even expressed in some small way my belief that I'm rooting for him to win. But I recently had an opportunity to re-watch Into the Wild and beyond saying this is a film you should see. And I don't even want you to take my word for it (well that is a lie, I want you fully to believe that this is a film worth seeing) but instead look at my friend Nick's post which is one of the most inspired pieces of writing I've read in some time(Into The Wild).

Hal Holbrook plays Ron Franz an old man who one day runs across young Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch). For inexplicable reasons (the novelty of a back packing youth? the vivacity in his eyes? something else?), Ron asks this young man where he is camping and when he doesn't recognize the name, he requests to be shown where it is in exchange for a lift. Ever eager McCandless takes him up on his offer. And the scene that unfolds isn't necessarily the most dramatic or powerful scenes in the movie. It doesn't even have the most emotional force of Holbrook's scenes.

The scene unfolds with comic elements as they drive past a nudist colony which has Ron gawking and peering over his shoulder. There is some general banter back and forth. But then a key exchange occurs. Ron asks McCandless if he has any family and McCandless careless responds "not anymore". And in one look and one line of dialog, Hal Holbrook conveys a lifetime's worth of sadness and experience which will later be spelled out but is so amazingly powerful that when I re-watched this seen all I could think was "that line, right there, he deserves to win for that line alone. If he were in no other scene in the entire movie, that line should win it for him."

Yes, Javier Bardem was phenomenal as a principled monster traversing a western landscape. Yes, Philip Seymour Hoffman was funny and serious in his role as a CIA operative who cared about what he was doing but was a bit too crass to play the politics game. Yes, the way Tom Wilkinson seemed to flawlessly flow from seemingly insane to 100% logical, pragmatic lawyer was amazing to watch. (I admit I have not seen Casey Affleck's performance but if its as good as his performance in Gone Baby Gone then I suspect its pretty damn good.

But none of that matters because not one of those roles sold me on a character in a single line and look. I've admitted in a very unmanly fashion that the scenes with Hal Holbrook (in particular the last one between Holbrook and Hirsch) had me tearing up. And this time around, the way Holbrook uttered that one line just floored me. I keep hearing it and envisioning it over in my head.

And on Oscar night even though everyone in this category is really good and deserving, if anyone but Holbrook gets called up, I'm going go be really unhappy. Sadly I expect I will be really unhappy on Oscar night.

It Happened One Night - Winner 1935

A.O. Scott recently wrote a excellent analysis of the Romantic Comedy for the New York Times which I encourage you to read because when it comes to analysis I'm always floored and envious of Mr. Scott's learning and insight(A Fine Romance, My Friend, This Is). In this piece, Scott mentioned the film It Happened One Night which by extraordinary coincidence reached the top of my Netflix queue a few days later.

Claudette Colbert plays Ellie, a daughter of a wealthy business man who has secretly married a wealthy New York playboy. Her father keeps her trapped on a boat until she escapes and begins to head north to be reunited with her husband. Along the way she meets Peter (Clark Gable) a down on his luck newspaper reporter. His initial attraction to her spitfire attitude is changed when he discovers who she is and knows he is sitting on a goldmine of a story. He aids her in her trip north in order to get exclusive rights to her stories.

They have a pretty typical introduction to each other (what we usually call today a "meet cute") and of course experience many misadventures along the way. In fact I was a little surprised by how this pretty much fell in line with what I would describe as a conventional romantic comedy. But beyond a conventional plot, the movie doesn't try to be anything more than it is. It relies on its actors to play the characters they have been given and they do this well. It has some nice snappy dialog between Gable and Colbert. There are a few songs keeping the mood light but most decently integrated into the film.

Its an overall generally charming film. The leads are great together in their charm. There are several charming scenes including the dividing of a motel room with a piece of string and a banquet and a great scene taking place near hay stacks on a farm. Its a competently directed charming film that won best picture which shows you how things have changed since I doubt any similar film could do as much in these days (although I suppose a Juno win (no matter how much it would sicken me) would prove me wrong). Still if I'm going for charm, this one falls short of The Thin Man which had the brilliant banter between William Powell and Myrna Loy.

Give props to the Brits

We cinephiles can get awfully worked up over the awards process. We pick our favorites and announce our top lists. We praise or complain about nominations (we howl or rejoice at award wins). Now maybe you all haven't been bizarrely transfixed by the vast array of awards being handed out from the SAGs to the Golden Globes to even the DGA awards not to mention all those critical review board honors. But I have, obsessively so.


I've kept almost daily tabs on the news flowing in and once I discovered it I even regularly check the "Hollywood Stock Exchange" (HSX). If you were unaware one thing econ people like to do is reduce everything to a stock market scenario. They do this with the election every four years and have surprising success, since the "market" absorbs all information such as award wins and industry buzz and filters it through thousands of people playing a game with a payout.

But even I as sadly obsessed as I am forgot about the British. Yeah, they too have an award show. And they are at times more willing to recognize films that would go unnoticed in our own Awards fervor. A best british film category? That's a nice way to honor a few more excellent films. So check out the noms (BAFTA) if you care as I expound on who i would choose if i were in Britain.

Best Picture:

AMERICAN GANGSTER
ATONEMENT
THE LIVES OF OTHERS
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
THERE WILL BE BLOOD

"Lives of Others" was quite excellent but it was winner for best foreign film at last year's American Academy Award. American Gangster (well no worse than choosing Juno)? Here to my lot is thrown in with No Country For Old Men.

Best British Film:

ATONEMENT
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM
CONTROL
EASTERN PROMISES
THIS IS ENGLAND

I have no idea what gets you qualified for this category but the novelty of it makes me smile. I mean look at some of those movies. Bourne Ultimatum and Control and Eastern Promises? Still of this list, i have to go with Control it had an emotional resonance that really drives it.

Best Directory

ATONEMENT – Joe Wright
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM – Paul Greengrass
THE LIVES OF OTHERS – Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN – Joel Coen/Ethan Coen
THERE WILL BE BLOOD – Paul Thomas Anderson

Again I give kudos to the BAFTAs for recognizing that an action director can have some serious talent, let's hope the American Academy can one day see the light. Still the Coens were just too amazing.

Best Actor

GEORGE CLOONEY – Michael Clayton
DANIEL DAY-LEWIS – There Will Be Blood
JAMES McAVOY – Atonement
VIGGO MORTENSEN – Eastern Promises
ULRICH MÜHE – The Lives of Others

Nick (Cinemaromantico) would be pleased to see McAvoy nominated but let's be real, this is Day-Lewis's category, He owns it.

Best Actress

CATE BLANCHETT – Elizabeth: The Golden Age
JULIE CHRISTIE – Away From Her
MARION COTILLARD – La Vie en Rose
KEIRA KNIGHTLEY – Atonement
ELLEN PAGE – Juno

Nick, actually might be uber happy, Knightley gets nominated as well. But what the hell is up with Blanchett in Elizabeth? Seriously she wasn't that good in that one. I'll go with Julie Christie who was quite amazing.

Supporting Actor

JAVIER BARDEM – No Country for Old Men
PAUL DANO – There Will Be Blood
TOMMY LEE JONES – No Country for Old Men
PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN – Charlie Wilson’s War
TOM WILKINSON – Michael Clayton

I couldn't complain if anyone won in this category. Mr. Holbrook is missing (but he got the Oscar nod) so I'll role out with Mr. Hoffman.

Supporting Actress

CATE BLANCHETT – I’m Not There
KELLY MACDONALD – No Country for Old Men
SAMANTHA MORTON – Control
SAOIRSE RONAN – Atonement
TILDA SWINTON – Michael Clayton

Okay, yeah what the hell BAFTAs!? Where is Amy Ryan? I mean I appreciate the Kelly Macdonald nod and Samantha Morton (always fabulous) but seriously. Still all these performances were pretty damn good. Kelly Macdonald will have to act as my surrogate Amy Ryan on this one.

Well, that killed some time.

Running Tally

I don't want to jinx it but January was a good month in terms of movies and in terms of a certain long dreamed but never realized goal of 100 films in one year. Thanks to a lucrative week in Chicago when I saw five films in as many days, I have caped out January with twelve movies (fourteen counting the two I watched twice). So let us recap quickly January

January 1 - Starting Out In The Evening: Incredibly good, incredibly smart film based around three well developed relationships. Frank Langella is fantastic in every scene.

January 1 - Control: Emotionally exhausted from Starting Out In The Evening I had little left to give for this one (which I watched immediately after the aforementioned film). Still it was a very well done biopic that I am eager to watch again.

January 2 - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: I was perhaps a bit unfair to how good this film was after my first viewing. But I've thought about it the most of all the films I saw this month and on my second viewing fully feel convinced that it is expert genius film making.

January 2 - Juno: Funny, pleasant and generally feel good. Very happy I saw it.

January 5 - There Will Be Blood: Despite extraordinary pain from sitting in the second row with my knees crushed against the seat in front of me and my neck at such an angle that I'm still feeling sore this movie had me captivated for about an hour and a half. The problem? Its two and half hours long. It starts to unravel as it comes to the end. Still in fairness to it and not so aglow with anticipation I gave it a second viewing and found it still had problems but was less problematic than I initially concluded.

January 12 - In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale: well just plain awful in all honesty but proudly I can say this is the only movie I went to see in January that was merely because I wanted to see something. Even the bad stuff I saw like Cloverfield, I actually wanted to see.

January 19 -The Savages: Great story with well acted, well written characters although its ending seems a bit too neatly wrapped up and Hollywoodized.

January 20 - Cloverfield: Gimmicky and kind of annoying and the camera work gave me a headache.

January 23 - The Orphanage: Decent horror film. Lots of good tension and almost know cheap shock scare moments. Disappointed with the ending but overall very satisfying.

January 24 - Away From Her: Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent are amazing as a couple dealing with alzheimer's. Very well done.

January 26 - Michael Clayton: Well acted, technically well done, tight interesting story and yet I still came out of it kind of thinking 'so what?' Still a good film that didn't move me is still better than a crappy film any day of the week.

January 28 - Rambo: Just a fun action film with an admitted dopey inevitable ending that still managed to charm me.

Bring it on February and let the countdown continue. Bring on meaningless statistics.

Films remaining: 88
Days remaining: 334
Average films per day to succeed: .26
Average films per week to succeed: 1.87