Running Tally - Part 11

November was kind of a crummy month in general but in terms of movie seeing, it was pretty productive. I added 9 to the tally which brings me just 6 short of my goal with a mere 31 days left. I just have to find six mildly interesting films between now and New Years and I will never have to strive to see 100 movies in a year again. Overall it has been good for the movies. Even the films I didn't like were still pretty damn good. Only two films were outright disasters in my opinion. And in addition, and renewing my sapped strength was the best film of the year, the odd yet powerful Synecdoche, New York. I rambled in my praise but let me just say I saw it four times in as many days. And I'll see it at least once more before year's end no doubt. Let's take a look at November in the movies:

Rachel Getting Married - despite some powerful performances I was underwhelmed by this film. It could have risen above and beyond. I was also a bit exhausted by the long and unnecessary love fest moments.

RocknRolla - Not as fresh as his first brit gangster films and in fact highly derivative but nevertheless there was a certain amount of charm and likability to the film. Diverting if nothing else.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno - at times really funny, at times a little to explicitly gross for me. Overall a charming film in the Judd Apatow new style of gross out comedy/sweet romance.

What Just Happened - disaster of a parody of a Hollywood producer played by DeNiro. Though slightly refreshing to have him not play a tough guy, the film just failed to deliver anything interesting.

Quantum of Solace - Jason Bourne should be Jason Borne and James Bond should be James Bond. I didn't think that after Casino Royale but after this mess I think the new direction might be a mistake. Maybe its just not being done well. CGI was laughable, laughable.

Transporter 3 - admittedly a guilty pleasure, not a good film by any stretch of the imagination.

JCVD - not a great film by any means but definitely had its odd moments. Somewhat intriguing self reflection by an aging b movie action star.

Happy Go Lucky - (review forthcoming) still haven't decided on this one, may need to rewatch.

Synecdoche, New York - how many ways can I say best film I've seen all year? Late in the movie a man playing a priest at a funeral gives a monolog that floors me every time.

"Everything is more complicated than you think. You only see a tenth of what is true. There are a million little strings attached to every choice you make. You can destroy your life every time you choose. But maybe you won't know for twenty years! And you may never ever trace it to its source. And you only get one chance to play it out. Just try and figure out your own divorce...

And they say there's no fate, but there is, it's what you create. And even though the world goes on for eons and eons, you are only here for a fraction of a fraction of a second. Most of your time is spent being dead, or not yet born. But while alive, you wait in vain wasting years for a phone call or a letter or a look from someone or something to make it all right, but it never comes. Or it seems to, but it doesn't really.

So you spend you time in vague regret or vaguer hope that something good will come along, something to make you feel connected, something to make you feel cherished, something to make you feel loved. And the truth is is, I feel so angry! And the truth is, I feel so fucking sad! And the truth is, I've felt so fucking hurt for so fucking long and for just as long, I've been pretending I'm okay, just to get along!

I don't know why. Maybe because...no one wants to hear about my misery...because they have their own. Well, fuck everybody. Amen."

That is the movie in capsule. The scene is cathartic. That scene makes a pretty great movie a unbelievable movie.

And so November ends pretty good. But what you really all came to see. Meaningless statistics.

Films Remaining: 6
Days Remaining (As of December 1): 31
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.19
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.2

JCVD

The shear number of Jean Claude Van Damme movies I saw in my formative years is in retrospect embarrassing. Not just that I watched them (some more than once) but that I can vividly recall details from them. I'm just as guilty of watching far too many Steven Segal movies. But in my defense when you're a kid, there really isn't much better than shooting guns and beating people up. Now that is/was entertainment. I think my tastes have become more refined in the interim. Although as one can see I occasionally just enjoy a mindless fun action film. So a strange curiosity rolled up on me when I heard of the film JCVD. And a handful of at least mildly positive reviews encouraged this curiosity.

JCVD is a fiction film about Jean Claude Van Damme. Aging, not getting as many choice roles anymore, struggling for custody of his daughter, Van Damme returns to his native Belgium and soon finds himself in a bank robbery and hostage crisis. I won't say much more than that regarding the plot because there are some spoilers if I do, not that the turns of this film are not fairly obvious from the beginning. Still a great deal of the film cuts back and forth between the present and recent past showing how he would up in a post office/bank.

It isn't a great film by any means. Even when its acknowledging Hollywood action movies it also tends to mimic them verbatim. If you watch the movie and are surprised by anything I'll be shocked. But what is for the most part enjoyable and interesting, is Van Damme's introspective portrayal of himself. Sure he may not seem like the most fascinating actor to get this treatment but in reality a B movie actor who never gained the superstardom he sought and except as a joke doesn't have much of a real fan following either, its quite interesting and I sort of enjoyed the ride.

Transporter 3

I really like Jason Statham as an actor. He had great performances in Guy Ritchie's first two films, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. I suspect he is a quite limited actor, however, and so I understand why he has preferred the action movie hero role as his predominant casting rubric. Truth be told he actually makes a pretty good action hero. He's largely taciturn but when he does speak he has that gruff, no nonsense voice. He can be a killer but emotes just enough that you know he's the good guy who deep down has the heart of gold. Even though he's been in a lot of terrible action films over the years, he always manages to be a redeeming quality.

The Transporter film series is admittedly pretty formulaic. Its whole raison d'etre is car chases, gun battles and martial arts. And the third installment just takes the tried and true formula and adds an admittedly shallow trick to it, so the adrenaline keeps flowing. Statham is Frank Martin, a former US special forces soldier and wheel man extraordinaire. He's forced into a job in which he must delivery a package to a specified location and if he goes more than 75 feet from the car, he blows up. This causes some outrageously absurd moments in the film but that's par for the course in action films any more.

It isn't a great action film but it delivers the goods in a satisfactory way. Yes, the acting and dialog are atrocious (save a certain exception, which I will mention later on). Yes the plot is overly convoluted and in fact the main villain even points this out at one point. But no one came to this film for good acting, dialog and intricately well thought out plots. We came to see a guy drive fast and take on hordes of the enemy in elaborate choreographed martial arts stunts. And you know what? The movie delivers.

The fight scenes are really fun to watch. Not the least of which is because I can actually follow what is happening. The director doesn't cut every .012 seconds during the action so that I have no idea what is happening. You can see the kicks, the punches, the elaborate and ludicrous use of Statham's wardrobe as weapons. Sure the chase sequences aren't great but the effective car chase sequence is a Holy Grail of action films and very hard to pull off or even to explain why the best ones are so effective. I also enjoy the 20 to 1 odds that Statham often faces. Yes, its over the top but its satisfying to watch.

I mentioned above that some of the acting and dialog wasn't completely awful. This is thanks to French actor Francois Berleand. He plays Inspector Tarconi a police investigator who is friend's with Martin despite the fact that one is criminal and one is police. He's been in every episode of this trilogy and has been memorable in each. He plays such a laid back bon vivant that I can't help but smile. A number of his conversations with Frank are amusing and give you the sense that these two are age old friends.

You know very well whether you are likely to enjoy Transporter 3 based on whether 1) in general you enjoy action films (even not so great ones) or 2) you enjoyed even remotely any of the previous two films. I for one was glad for the fun.

Hallelujah!!

Charlie Kaufman, I'm pretty sure is getting more and more insane with each new work. And with each new work I am more and more impressed. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was very well written (even if I didn't think the film as a whole was great), Adaptation was one of the best pieces of evidence of what a good writer can do and now Synechdoche, New York which also marks the directorial debut of Mr. Kaufman. I cannot even begin to explain the plot. And perhaps it is best to do as fellow movie snob CinemaRomantico suggested and just say see it.

The difference here? I do absolutely think it is the best movie of the year. Sure that is a personal opinion. And not likely one to be shared. To be sure its semi-incoherent but I settled in half way through and smiled and hoped I would have a cinematic experience this year like I did several times last year. And now I can finally said I did. I'm seeing it again. No question. It will happen. And in my struggles of life, its like a bright message sent from above that the best movie I've seen this year falls almost a year to the day after I saw the best movie of 2007, No Country For Old Men.

I don't want to suggest that this film is anything like the Coen brothers masterpiece. I want to assure you it isn't like anything you've ever seen at all. I just know that I walked out with such a deep level of satisfaction that not one of life's problems that constantly assault us mattered for a few precious hours. This was movie 91 for the year and a small part of me wishes it had been number 100 just to end my going on 4 year dream with a bang. This is why I see movies. I'm lucky if I see one or two movies a year that make me feel this good.

Oh and you know what else? I swear this happened, I could't make this up. What should show up in my email inbox at virtually the precise moment the film ended? An email from a local cinema that has answered my request and the request of people like me to start hosting classic films on an ongoing basis. Durham being a bit underwhelming on the revival bandwagon unless you count bad 80s horror films. And now the endless possibilities of what I could see on the big screen lie before me! Do you understand the potential in all this?

I might literally die of happiness if I got to see Seventh Seal on the big screen. (to say the previous sentence is macabre given the subject matter of the film is like saying Titanic is about a sinking boat, but as it is my second favorite movie of all time, it must be said) It's freaking Christmas! people! See Synechdoche, New York, like CinemaRomantico, this is not a request, its a command. You'll probably hate it or call it pretentious, or say dude it was good but not that good. And I'll stare at you like you're some sort of alien. In fact, sorry to cut this rambling short, but I'm going back tonight. It has to be done.

Quantum of Solace

Picking up shortly after the end of Casino Royale, we find James Bond (Daniel Craig) being chased by some bad guys. He eventually eludes them and brings a man in for questioning about a mysterious group called Quantum. A seemingly omnipresent international cabal with its hands in everything. Bond is a man on a mission to uncover this secret group which was partly responsible for the death of Vesper (Eva Green) from the last film. Bond is quickly in the thick of it all and has M (Judi Dench) thinking he is driven by revenge rather than duty. Quickly we are introduced to our villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) and another player Camille (Olga Kurylenko).

Don't worry if that didn't make much sense as the plot is the least of the problems of this film. I've read a number of "readings" of James Bond recently. Some advocating a return to the more campy cool, non brooding fight conglomerate enemies of the Spectra variety. Others approving of the new direction of a brooding Bond who fights more relevant 20th century problems. I'm not sure I care who is right and I enjoyed reasonably well Casino Royale but the creative juices behind this film don't seem to know which way to go either. Yes, Bond is brooding but he's fighting a multinational cabal of baddies known as Quantum whose goals aim more towards making lots of money rather than world domination.

The cutesiness of not having signature lines uttered continues in this film right down to an agonizing bit of dialog where a bartender describes all the contents of the martini that Bond is drinking but never says martini. Why? Who thought that was clever? Of course I felt a bit of queasiness in my stomach when I saw Paul Haggis' name flash on the screen with a writing credit. He's not exactly known for his subtlety from what I have seen and the script is no exception. But no one comes to a Bond movie for writing right? Probably a fair point but I'm not asking for it to win a screenwriting award, just not to be heavy handed and not bore me to the point of wishing I had just stayed home and stared at the wall for 2 hours.

Then there is Marc Forster and his seemingly lack of knowing what to do in an action sequence. The only thing that was boring me more than most of the narrative was most of the action sequences. Their rushed, lack tension and generally stirred no emotion beyond "meh" in me. They were also largely filled with what was either really poorly done green screening or even more poorly done actually stunts. Forster should probably stick to the films that don't require action sequences.

Daniel Craig is good with what he has (read: not much) and certainly has an intensity that is nice. Mathieu Amalric (who starred in one of my favorite movies of last year, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) does what he can with the regrettably one dimensional role he's been given as representative Bond villain. Then there is the beauty Olga Kurylenko who in every film I have seen her in has been treated by the men as some sort of mediocre woman judging by the complete lack of passion they have for her.

To be sure I was a supporter, avidly, of the new Bond (if you're curious here is my review short and sweet.) But upon reflection and given the direction this film took, I really miss the old Bond. We've got Jason Bourne for no non-sense no emotion spy action. Do we really want Bond as the British Bourne? If they keep going this way that is all he will be. And since the Bourne movies do Bourne better than the Bond movies, why would I continue to watch Daniel Craig? I'm not saying per se we should go back to the cold war era Bond but put a little bit more fun back in the film. Oh and give the directing reins to someone who at least knows his or her way around an action sequence.

P.S. if you're going to have a beautiful woman like Olga Kurylenko in your movie at least have Bond sleep with her. What's the world coming to?

Trying to stay calm

I'm really not trying to put the cart before the horse here but a moment of perspective is needed. Back in 2006 when I started keeping a running tally of the movie I saw and the first year I actually attempted to complete the 100 movies in a year goal, I managed 85 movies. Last year, 2007 I tweaked that up 88. As of last night I watched film number 89 for the year 2008. Unfortunately to see even close to a hundred movies in a year it requires one to see a lot of crap (if you live in a down such as I do where you take what they give in terms of indie or foreign fare. So 11 films left and I can finally retire this really sad goal.

What Just Happened

Ben (Robert DeNiro) is one of Hollywood's 30 most powerful producers (so he tells us personally) and the movie starts with him at a test screening of a new film by a British director called "Fiercely". The audience does not react well to the film and the ending has a shocking thing that disturbs most of the audience. This causes huge problems for tough minded studio head Lou (Catherine Keener). Ben must juggle the director, Lou as well as another project starring Bruce Willis. Willis has showed up on set with a shaggy beard and 30 pounds of extra weight. This is a problem for the studio. In addition to his work woes, Ben is dealing with two ex-wives and children as well as other aspects of his personal life.

If the goal of this film is to dismiss the glorious mythos of Hollywood, then it succeeds. Ben and his problems throughout the movie are as mundane and boring as it gets. As he drives from one place to another constantly with a blue tooth headphone in his ear, talking quickly and smoothing over problems. The life of a Hollywood producer couldn't possibly be more monotonous and boring. Even when he's having obscenities hurled at him by an actor the level of excitement never really rises. Which is kind of odd because you would expect it too.

I can't be entirely sure that the goal is to dismiss the mythos of Hollywood. It may in fact be that this movie is so poorly constructed that it just makes you bored. As we get this insider look (which has been better done via parody) we also get a glimpse of Ben's private life. And I say glimpse because its always quick and not very well fleshed out. Again perhaps because his life is consumed with his job but there is an entire sub sub plot with one of his daughter's that makes less than zero sense and has no satisfactory conclusion.

DeNiro is blissfully underplayed. No over the top bad ass here. In fact he's about as weak kneed and spineless as you might expect of a Hollywood producer. Not to demean producers but life has to suck pretty bad when you are basically being manhandled on a daily basis by studio heads and prima donna actors. The only one in the movie who shows any emotion is Bruce Willis playing himself and even his outbursts seem stilted and unconvincing.

The film is boring and low key and honestly upon consideration I'm amazed I sat through the entire thing. Which is really to bad because DeNiro and director Barry Levinson gave quite an entertaining film in Wag the Dog eleven years ago.

Zack and Miri Make A Porno

Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) have been friends for a long time. They now live from paycheck to paycheck together in a small apartment in Monroeville, PA. Financially irresponsible they have their power and water turned off on the same day. They have recently attended their ten year high school reunion and there met a gay porn star. This gives Zack the idea that they should make an amateur porn movie starring themselves and a cadre of local strippers and enthusiastic actors.

If ever there was a movie with multiple personality disorder it is this one. There is no doubt that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie because large segments of the film are raunchy. Swearing, sex and one bit of scatological joke that could have gone unseen by me. It also happens to have a rather sweet side to it. The sincere connection between Zack and Miri is in classic romantic comedy style and has classic rom-com plot development. Rogen is of course always a good choice for that lovable loser role and Banks despite her beauty pulls off a very cool, normal woman vibe (i.e. you could believe she would fall for a lovable loser like Zack).

Smith's previous attempt at sentimentality (Jersey Girl) fell to far into the sappy mode. I think Smith has missed his mark here again by relying a bit too much on his trade mark crudeness. Which isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film. Which I sort of did. The crude parts made me laugh on more than one occasion and the sweet romance was endearing. The problem was the two don't really fit together very well. And yes I do think there is a composition that works (e.g. 40 Year Old Virgin). Clearly there is some drive by Smith to find the perfect mix and he does seem to be getting closer and perhaps his next attempt will succeed (sadly he'll probably return to a Mallrats 2 in the interim).

If I seem indifferent or confused on the film, I think it wholly a result of the fact that the film falls short of the sum of its parts. There is also a small part starring the current Superman and fellow Iowa native Brandon Routh. He plays a former classmate of Zack and Miri who is now involved with Justin Long's gay pornstar. Basically these scenes involve Long being flamboyant and crude while Routh tries to keep from laughing. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the movie, I just felt like mentioning it. In the end it was okay.

Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist

As per Cinema Romantico's request, I'll try to elucidate my hatred of the recent film Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. This may prove difficult since it has been some time since I saw it, I found 90% of the film painful beyond reckoning, and as a result I went to another movie that night just to wash the memory from my mind (it was only partially successful). Despite the titular heroes sharing the names of two great bantering movie icons (Nick (William Powell) and Nora (Myrna Loy) of The Thin Man) quick witted and interesting characters they are not.

Plot synopsis vaguely: Nick has been dumped by Tris (Alexis Dziena) and hasn't gotten over her and leaves her mixed CDs. Typically Nora gets these after digging them from the trash and really likes his taste. Coincidence causes the two of them to wind up at a night club together and various other coincidences cause them to spend the night roaming New York City trying to find some band that performs live shows in clandestine locations. In typical rom com style they disagree and agree and show interest in one another and then not and then blah blah blah. Who the hell cares.

Issue 1: The infinite play list is filled with songs and bands that I only assume are hip and hopping right now among today's youth but its all just noise to me and rather wretched noise for the most part. Despite all evidence to the contrary I am not an 80 year old man (well maybe in spirit). Maybe someone else will enjoy the music.

Issue 2: Why at any moment am I to believe these two are interested in each other? Beyond liking the same music (which they barely establish) and a few far too short moments where the two characters actually converse with one another, I never found one thing that helped explain what they saw in each other. And clearly the filmmakers were aiming from some spiritual connection motif not just lust. So what the hell gives?

Issue 3: It wasn't the Thin Man (or even had dialog that would make the Thin Man proud). At the production stage someone should have insisted on character name change. Oh you know what movie it also isn't? Although its certainly aiming to be in some ways? Before Sunrise. Yeah See in that film we got long conversations between the two characters and low and behold we had a reason to believe they would spend a night talking and arrange to meet at some future point. If they had cut out half the crappy music and drunk girl subplot and had actual genuine moments of conversation between Nick and Nora, this film might have actually had some redeemable quality.

Now lets end on a happier note:

Reporter: Say listen, is he working on a case?
Nora Charles: Yes, he is.
Reporter: What case?
Nora Charles: A case of scotch. Pitch in and help him.

RocknRolla

Guy Ritchie has had a bizarre career in directing. His first film Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels still stands as his best entry in the world of film. It was funny, slick and had twists and turns that kept it all going. His follow up Snatch was also clever and fun but not quite as clever and fun as his first film. I never saw what by most accounts were disasters Swept Away and Revolver. So what caused his percipitous drop in quality of film making? Was is his now defunct marriage to Madonna? Time will only tell.

Out front I'll admit I liked RocknRolla. No, its not a great film and it falls as short or shorter of Snatch than Snatch did of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. But still it had a certain amount of charm tied up in it. The plot within plots story line that Ritchie favors is getting a bit limp but enjoyable performances from the likes of Tom Wilkinson and Gerard Butler carry the film through and as a gigantic fan of The Wire, I couldn't help but be happy to see Idris Elba (Stringer Bell for those not in the know).

Ritchie might seriously consider moving away from the British gangster genre. Even at his best he falls short of some of the best the genre has ever offered. And you can see the legacy of such films in Ritchie's work. I felt more than once like I was watching a bit of a poor man's Long Good Friday and lets face it Long Good Friday in my opinion is about as good as it gets in British gangster films. Typically when one mentions all the actors seem to be having a good time and so you have a good time watching, I protest. But here I must admit I was smiling more than I thought I should be and burst into laughter a few times as well.

I can't say I'd see it again or buy it on dvd but I was glad I saw it. Now excuse me why I go re-watch Long Good Friday and you should go re-watch it as well. (Allow me to pray for your soul if you haven't seen it.)

Rachel Getting Married

If, as my friend and fellow blogger CinemaRomantico says, Rachel Getting Married is the best film of the year then that is a really sad statement of films this year. It's not a bad film, it just isn't a great film or even a really good film. Its basically an okay film that gets elevated above its mediocrity by the lackluster year we've had and some strong performances.

The film takes place over a weekend as Rachel (Rosemarie Dewitt) is getting married. Her sister Kym (Anne Hathaway) is released from rehab for the occasion and all the issues of her life are coming with her. The fact that the whole wedding weekend is seemingly one giant love fest of multiculturalism save for occasional flare ups by Kym exposing the family drama is just a little too saccharine sweet for me. Tie that in with the wobbly hand held camera that films most of the action and I was queasy for a considerable part of the film.

For the love of all that is just set the camera down! I don't care if the point is to give a documentary feel or to make you feel as if you are in the house (I doubt the latter since last I checked my vision didn't rock softly like a boat in choppy water when I participate in activities (unless I've been drinking)). The film is at its most annoying when overwhelming me with happy, happy speech or music number in the rehearsal dinner or the actual wedding. I'd have been so much happier if the film had been 20 minutes shorter and had just cut out a lot of these scenes of love (but I admit I'm cynical).

It is at its most compelling when it is exposing that in fact the family isn't so cutesy and straight-laced. Rachel and Kym's father tends to prioritize Kym. Their mother is distant and lacking affection. The family fights are really intriguing. Still even as they are compelling they also never rise above what we've seen before from this kind of film. Add in all the nauseating rocking camera and the paradisaical nature of the wedding and its all just too much for me.

I admit my cynicism may be influencing me here and it has fine elements (and Anne Hathaway could be nominated for her performance and I wouldn't gripe) but it just wasn't great.

Running Tally - Part 10

Despite not really posting at all in the month of October, I did actually manage to see a few films. My lack of posting has probably thrilled more than few people who don't care for my opinions and my horrible grammar. Still partly because I had more pressing concerns and partly because I haven't seen anything that inspired me to write, I never wrote about the six movies I did manage to see (although I am always optimistic that I will return to make some banal comment on these films. Six is shy of the average I needed for the month to just pull off the 100 goal and this has me admittedly worried.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist - This movie was so bad and made me so angry that I immediately left the theater afterwards (yes I sat through the whole film) and went to another movie. A movie I admit I didn't pay to see.

Appaloosa - I really hoped this would redeem my movie going night. I was raised on Westerns and all I read said Harris desired to make an old school western. He failed. Miserably. At least 3:10 to Yuma which I also didn't like much was trying to be something interesting. This movie can't even do an homage right.

Moving Midway - All hail the year of the documentary. Okay so sure some of the documentaries I saw this year are not technically 2008 releases but who cares I have seen so many good documentaries this year. As a movie critic I'm not a big fan of Godfrey Cheshire (the director of the film) but as for storytelling he's amazing. The film incorporates the history of film, the history of his family and the history of a house and the South in such a unique and compelling way.

The Garden of Earthly Delights - The third film of Lech Majewski that was showcased and a very interesting love story. Again Majewski is clearly doing very interesting things with the camera and it doesn't look like his other two films which is more than can be said for many a director. Not great but compelling none the less.

W. - No compelling narrative and more like a series of snapshots of the life of our current president and nothing that isn't already known pretty well or completely made up. Maybe Bush isn't that interesting but if so why not use creative license to make him so.

A Girl Cut In Two - The whole film felt out of place and after the fact I read an article that said it was based on a real 19th century event and suddenly it was clear. Don't set a story in the modern age if you are beholden to 19th century themes and morals. When it wasn't confusing it was just unbelievable.

But what you all came here to see, meaningless statistics.

Films Remaining: 15
Days Remaining (As of November 1): 61
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.25
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.67