The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Title: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
Director: David Fincher
Genre: Drama, Romance
Lead Actor(s): Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett
Rating: PG-13
166 minutes

I think the premise is extremely intriguing. Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) ages backwards. He is born a creepy old baby. His mother dies in childbirth and after briefly considering infanticide, his father leaves him on the steps of an old folks home. He is raised by the black caretaker, Queenie (Taraji P. Henson). He meets Daisy (Cate Blanchett) and through their lives their paths cross again and again. Daisy grows older while Benjamin looks younger and younger.

Brad Pitt makes this movie. He is able to hold a child-like curiosity and maturity, while still looking like an old man. Then he has to have an old soul while appearing 22. The most convincing element, in my opinion is when Benjamin surprises Daisy in New York. You can see his heart breaking and yours almost breaks with it. He exhibits some of the carefree ease he did in Thelma and Louise. This is one of Pitt’s best performances in a long while. Despite his condition and his turmoils in love, he always see the beauty in what he has been given and the opportunity that could be wasted. He is able to travel the world like a young man, but still retain the wisdom of age.

I would not say this is Cate Blanchett’s best performance, but there are great points to it. Particularly when Daisy is pushing Benjamin away or trying to drag him closer. I don’t think her performance as the old Daisy is particularly intriguing. Blanchett does great in extremes and well in the in-betweens.

The cinematography is utterly gorgeous as well. There are several shots that would make gorgeous and expressive photographs. It enhances the beauty and meaning of the film in a way that makes the plot and actors the stars. The camera angles and positioning are also deliberate and compelling. There is a particularly beautiful scene in Paris in one of those butterfly wing sequences.

My biggest problem was Tilda Swinton. I have never really found her to be an entertaining actress. Here she plays a woman Benjamin meets in Russia named Elizabeth Abott. I never really believed her or the chemistry between her and Benjamin. Who can’t have chemistry with Brad Pitt? Luckily she is the movie for a brief time, especially considering how long the movie is. I would argue the only performance I really enjoyed was as the White Witch. She can’t express emotion with any conviction or believability.

The movie is beautiful and has wonderful acting from Pitt. He makes Benjamin heart-breaking and inspirational and tragic and beautiful Fincher used the story in the best way possible. These two are the shining stars in this movie. The rest for the most part is good. Swinton is not. Still this is a movie that is worth seeing. I understand, however, that some dislike movies this long and some may find the pacing boring. If it went faster, it would disrupt the simplicity Fincher somehow managed.

******** 8/10

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

I just want to mention that last night I saw the touring company of Beauty and the Beast last night and highly recommend anyone who has a chance to do so.

Title: Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Director: Woody Allen
Genre: Drama, Romance
Lead Actor(s): Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall
Rating: PG-13
96 minutes

This movie is not as good as Beauty and the Beast, but still enjoyable. Also the title is ridiculously fun to say. Two American best friends travel to Barcelona for very different reasons. Vicky (Rebecca Hall) goes to further her studies on Catalan culture and specifically the work of the artist Gaudi. Cristina is a restless soul who hasn’t found what she wants in life. They meet a celebrated and sexy artist Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) who still feels responsibility for his ex-wife, Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz), whom he still loves. Both Americans fall for the painter and Cristina develops a relationship with the painter, while Vicky marries her fiance.

I enjoy Johansson’s performances in Woody Allen films. In some instances she has been the best aspect of the movie. She is really comfortable in the role. Cristina wants to feel like her odd triangle of a relationship is right for her, but isn’t. She loves the idea more than the reality. She wants to be more of the European sensibility, but still doesn’t know where the hell she fits in.

Javier Bardem is wonderful as the sexy, Latin painter. The last movie I saw of his before this was No Country For Old Men. He convincingly went from a homicidal, asexual psychopath to a seductive, talented artist. He is very much defined by the women he is with. With Vicky he is particularly cerebral. He is far more calculated in his interactions with people and his behaviors. With Maria Elena he is reckless and wild. Almost feral at times. He is overwhelmed by passion for anything he is doing. With Cristina he is a mixture of both that I would define as more artistic. He sees the angles and beauty of things, but is not so filled with it as to lose himself.

Cruz and Hall are the utter opposites of each other. Cruz’s Maria Elena is brash, impatient and all id. Cruz loves those characters because, in my opinion, she understands them. Halls is conservative, critical, crushingly down-to-earth. Cruz is strong in these wild women. Hall seems unsure of herself. I don’t know if this is due to the strong talent surrounding her, her lack of connection with the character, or something else. Another rather weak point in the movie is the narrator. I think it detracted from the film in a way that took the audience out of the experience of watching the movie.

I love how the movie ended. It is very Woody Allen and a good return from some of his more recent missteps. This is a unique and interesting romantic movie. There are some scenes involving homosexuality, subtitles, and large amounts of sexuality. As always if you are not comfortable with any of these things, this movie may not be for you.

******* 8/10

Doubt

Title: Doubt (2008)
Director: John Patrick Shanley
Genre: Drama
Lead Actor(s): Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman
Rating: PG-13
104 minutes

This was released the same year that Mamma Mia!. I just want to mind you of this fact as I discuss Meryl Streep role in the movie. It is 1964. A nun, Sister Aloysius (Streep), believes that something untoward is going on between a new priest and a young, black boy. A young nun, Sister James (Amy Adams), is drawn between Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius and her trust in people and her own misgivings.

The fact that Streep went from playing a hippie singing ABBA songs to playing the scariest, most righteous nun in existence in the same year and with equal ability and conviction is astounding. She even looks substantially older in this film than in the previous. The whole movie is based on her conviction in her intuition. As Aloysius she is stricter and more feared than the priest. Her arguments with Father Flynn in her office are especially engaging. Her accent is also quite good. My absolute favorite scene is the last one and specifically the last minute of the movie. Those few seconds make her performance.

I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance, but wanted him to be more likable. He was decently, but I think the dynamics would have been better if he had a little more Tom Hanks in his performance. His sermons were compelling as any good priest should be. The attendants seem to like him. Even the mother of the boy seemed to like this man to a degree. I felt, however, that he was not as amiable when interacting with the students or the fellow nuns/priests. Again the arguments in Aloysius’s office were especially compelling.

The audience was supposed to sympathize with Amy Adams’s character. I think she played the naive, optimistic Sister James wonderfully. She wants to believe the best in people, which I think is a good quality in someone who has devoted themselves to the church. There are times she stands up to Aloysius, but she for the most part tries to smooth everything over and please people. She loves what she does and doesn’t want to cause waves in any fashion. I believe her entire character can be summed up in the line, beautifully delivered to Streep, “You just don’t like him! You don’t like it that he uses a ballpoint pen. You don’t like it that he takes 3 lumps of sugar in his tea. You don’t like it that he likes ‘Frosty the Snowman’ and you are letting that convince you? Of something that’s terrible… Just terrible….”

Because this movie is so faithfully adapted from a play (the author directed and wrote the screenplay), there are some scenes and conversations that last for upwards of 15 minutes. I do think that the director needs a bit more experience behind the camera. There were camera angles that seemed there only because he had seen other movies do them. He knows how to work with actors and material, but the visual aspect needs a little work.

The movie is worth seeing based on Streep’s performance alone. The story is remarkably interesting as well. It takes on a very taboo subject and does it well. I think that if the director gets a bit more experience and confidence in the visual aspect, he can become a great film director. I really encourage watching the movie and finishing it. That last scene stayed with me for quite a while.

******** 8/10

Ponyo

Title: Ponyo (2008)
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Genre: Animation, Adventure
Lead Actor(s): This depends on which version you watch so I am just going to link to the full cast
Rating: G
101 minutes

Hayao Miyazaki is the Japanese equivalent of Pixar except that he is only one person. This is basically his loose interpretation of The Little Mermaid. It has elements from both the Disney version and the Hans Christian Anderson text, but it is still a loose translation.

I watched the dubbed version, mostly because I was watching it with my mom and she doesn’t like to read subtitles. I can thus only discuss the English cast and I am not completely sure how they were chosen. The two main characters, Ponyo and Sosuke, were played by Noah Cyrus and Frankie Jonas. And yes they are related to who you are thinking they are. I particularly liked Cyrus. I think she put the right energy and ravenous curiosity in this creature new to the earth.

I also thought that casting Liam Neeson as Fujimoto, the equivalent of King Triton, was perfect casting. The character looks rather feminine but Neeson brings great masculinity and power to the character. There are times where he even sounds a little like his counterpart in the Disney film.

I can’t say that the animation was the best of his films. I think Howl’s Moving Castle probably holds that honor. Miyazaki did have some of his trademark quirks. For instance, there is a scene where Ponyo runs across huge tidal waves that are in shapes of fish. Fujimoto also controls these weird blobby things that are actually a little creepy. I think that the story was really well written. It also was surprisingly easy for the story to be transitioned from teenagers to kids the age of 5.

This isn’t his best movie. Even his worser movies are better than some of the awful movie cranked out. The movie is very cute and unique. It also tells a well-known story in a very different and fun way. You can’t help but love the character Ponyo and the movie is pretty great too.

******** 8/10

The Dark Knight

I held off til the last day to write a Batman review. Aren’t ya proud?

Title: The Dark Knight (2008)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Genre: Comic Book, Drama
Lead Actor(s): Christian Bale, Heath Ledger
Rating: PG-13
152 minutes

This is obviously my favorite Batman movie. I think it is just about everyone’s favorite batman movie. For those two of you that don’t know the plot of the movie. The Joker is wreaking havoc on Gotham and Batman has to stop him. Originally The Joker is not very interested in Batman, but as he learns more he becomes obsessed with testing Batman’s resolve. Through a particularly horrific act by The Joker, district attorney Harvey Dent is horrifically marred and becomes Two-Face giving Batman one villain that is his exact antithesis and one villain that was once Gotham’s White Knight.

Christian Bale is wonderful at what George Clooney and Val Kilmer failed at. Bale’s Bruce Wayne is completely different from Batman and from Bruce in the bunker with Alfred. Bale seems comfortably playing the Wayne that buys a hotel so he can go swimming in the restaurant’s decorative pool with two supermodels and the Batman who goes on a high-speed chase with The Joker on the highways of Gotham or asking Lucius to make him a new gadget. Aside from the sometimes incomprehensibility of his Batman voice (it seemed to get deeper and gravelier between Batman Begins and this movie), he is an excellent Batman. I’d even go so far as to say he is the best film incarnation of Batman.

Aaron Eckhart was a good casting decision. He has the face of a typical film lawyer. He plays Harvey Dent beautifully. He has the pompous righteousness that fits so well with the character. My only problem is that his Two-Face lacks a lot of the duality that is so important to the character. His Two-Face is just angry. He does take the flip of the coin seriously, but he is lacking the dual personalities. This being said, I don’t know that we saw enough of the character to make a true determination of Eckhart’s performance as Two-Face. I personally don’t believe that Two-Face is dead. The character is so rich and rather central to the Batman universe that for him to be used so little seems odd. I don’t know that he will return in the next movie, but I do expect him to return in a later movie.

I love Batman, but my favorite villain is definitely The Joker. He is probably my favorite villain ever. I find the character fascinating and truthfully, he is part of the reason I became interested in forensic psychology. Now, I was one of the people who thought the casting choice of Heath Ledger as The Joker was a bit odd. He had displayed his versatility in the role of Ennis in Brokeback Mountain, but he still often played the charismatic ladies man. He had never played a character as perverse as The Joker. He was astounding in the character. He was darker than any other incarnation in film or tv. His Joker probably had more in common with the Mark Hamill voiced one than the Jack Nicholson one. He had the demented mentality so important in a good portrayal of the character. He also created a great voice to go along with the character. Every movement, action, facial expression is so spot on. There is even this wonderful look in his eyes that just speaks of the darkness of his soul. For an actor who was apparently very calm and even, it is truly remarkable that Ledger had the ability to bring that insanity into his performance. Every scene is a joy to see him in. My favorite is when The Joker is leaving the hospital and his explosives don’t go off and when they finally do, he gets such a look of happiness, almost like a child’s. The Joker is one of the deadliest of Batman’s gallery of rogues. Part of his deadliness comes from his utter lack of care at the outcomes of his actions. Ledger’s death was obviously a horrific tragedy. He was a gifted actor and could have had an immensely long career. Christopher Nolan left The Joker’s fate so open that it was obvious that he was going to come back. It would have been wonderful to see the reappearance, but no one can step into that role for several years.

Christopher Nolan understands the Batman universe just as well, if not better, than Bryan Singer understands the X-Men. His Gotham is dirty underneath, but can appear glitzy. People in Gotham ignore the crime that is a few miles from their door and Nolan uses the environment of the city to reflect that. The realism in Nolan’s Gotham helps make the depravity of the villains seem so much more frightening. Nolan is a fantastic director and the perfect man to direct this series. I am excited to see the new Batcave once it finally comes along.

Unfortunately I don’t really have the room to discuss the great performances of Michael Caine as Alfred or Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox or mention the fun bits of dialogue for us Batman geeks, but this is definitely the best Batman film made so far. It is quite long and with The Joker in the mix, Two-Face kind of takes a backseat, but in my opinion Two-Face was only set up in this film to become a threat in a later one. The only thing I wish is that Harley Quinn had made an appearance. I adore her character and I think her dynamic with The Joker is fascinating. If you only see one Batman film and possibly comic book film, this is the one to see.

********** 10/10

27 Dresses

Since I wrote such a long and completely geeky review yesterday, I thought I would right a short review today.

Title: 27 Dresses (2008)
Director: Anne Fletcher
Genre: Romance, Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Katherine Heigl, James Marsden
Rating: PG-13
111 minutes

Despite my incredibly geektastic tendencies, I am a girl; I have girl friends; I sometimes watch bad chick flicks. I admit it. The movie is about a pushover girl, Jane, who has been a bridesmaid 27 times (a total shock, I know). Her sister, Tess, becomes engaged to the man of her dreams, George, and the commitments writer Jane worships is sent to write about Tess and George’s wedding. The writer, Kevin, ends up being really snarky, but Jane ends up falling for him (another amazing twist).

Generally I despise Katherine Heigl. There is just something about her that irks me. I didn’t completely hate her in this, so that’s a bonus. On the other hand I generally like James Marsden. I continued to like him. He has a very amenable personality that is present in just about every character he plays. I know he has a great voice, but I am not sure that he has to sing in every non-comic book movie he is in. Granted it was pretty awesome to see him on a bar singing to Elton John of all people.

My favorite character was the sassy friend of Jane, Casey. Judith Greer is an underrated actress in my opinion. She was kind of a bitch and kind of a drunk and a little bit of a slut, but at least she had some personality.

This is no Pretty Woman or Shopgirl or even Devil Wears Prada, but for what it is, it is successful. It is a rather formulaic chick flick. It is the gooey romance that girls like to get together to watch while drinking strawberry margaritas. If I were judging it compared to classic or well-done movies, it would not get anything over a 3. I am not comparing it to those, I am judging it for what it is. By the way, I hate the poster.

***** 5/10

Gran Torino

Title: Gran Torino (2008)
Director: Clint Eastwood
Genre: Drama
Lead Actor(s): Clint Eastwood, Bee Vang
Rating: R
116 minutes

I saw this for the first time two days ago. If I had posted yesterday instead of going to the zoo, which was so much fun, I would have posted this review. There are several times in the movie that there are excellent pieces of dialog could turn into wonderful monologues. I think the movie could easily lend itself to an excellent play. The screenplay is excellent in my opinion. I usually find that if the author of the original material is also involved in transforming the piece for the screen, the screenplay reflects that and is better due to it.

Clint Eastwood really is an excellent director. If you have never seen his first film, Play Misty for Me, I highly recommend it. He likes natural film-making. By that I mean, he likes little make-up on his actors and he likes to get his shots done in one take. This doesn’t mean that he produces sub-par scenes. Instead he well prepares his actors and describes to them his vision in a way that only one take is really needed. This natural film-making makes his films seem more real in a way. The emphasis is on the acting, story, and directing. The make-up and costuming is more like a condiment than a defining ingredient.

Eastwood also stars as the grumpy Korean War veteran, Walt Kowalski, who has very recently become a widower. He lives next door to a family of Hmong. The son of the family, Thao, is pressured by his cousin to join his gang and his initiation is meant to be stealing Kowalski’s 1972 Gran Torino. This doesn’t happen and to make amends for attempting, Thao is made to work for Kowalski.

Eastwood does a wonderful job as the slightly racist Walt. He brings depth to a character that could have just been a grumpy old man. His actions seem natural and genuine. He also never loses his gruffness despite forming a relationship with the family. Bee Vang plays Thao and I don’t think the character actually speaks for the first 15 minutes. He is a quiet shy person who was pressured into something by his evil cousin, Spider. His relationship with Walt is mutually beneficial, giving Walt a sort of purpose and giving Thao a male role model.

My favorite character is Thao’s sister, Sue. She is as strong as Walt but in a very different way. She has adopted the American sensibilities far more than her mother or grandmother, who lives with them. She is the one who really brings Walt into her family’s life after Walt protects her brother from their cousin and his gang. The actress, Ahney Lor, does a marvelous job bridging Sue’s gap between the tradition of the Hmong and the sensibilities of the American.

This movie is marvelous. Every aspect is well crafted and thought out. There are elements of violence obviously, but aside from one small part they are not vicious or even very present. There are several elements of language, including several elements of racist language. This movie is not just enjoyable but it has an important message as well. It is an excellent movie and one of Eastwood’s better ones in my opinion

********* 9/10

Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog

Title: Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog (2008)
Director: Joss Whedon
Genre: Comedy, Musical
Lead Actor(s): Neil Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion
Rating: UR
42 minutes

I realize this was officially released on the internet and imdb lists it as a television show, but I don’t care. It is out on dvd. It could be  movie. An evil scientist (Harris) details his attempts to take over the world. His arch nemesis, Captain Hammer (Fillion), constantly ruins his plans and ends up stealing his would-be girlfriend (Felicia Day). It is told over three acts and through dialogue and songs. The songs are all very catchy and written by Joss Whedon.

Harris is remarkable as Dr. Horrible. He is both sympathetic and emotional. He is meant to be an evil scientist trying to get onto a board of evil led by Bad Horse. Harris has a magnificent voice as most people have seen on an award show or his television show.The last song, which I can’t say too much about without giving away the ending, is especially strong.

Nathan Fillion really seems to enjoy his role as the brash, egotistical Captain Hammer. He makes it so easy to hate Hammer and love Dr. Horrible.  Felicia Day is also very good as the bleeding-heart Penny. The audience can see why Horrible is attracted to her and she is just a very likable character.

This is a Joss Whedon creation and as such it has the typical Whedon wit. He wrote the songs and dialogue and also directed it. I personally love Joss Whedon and most of his creations. This one, however, I think is one of his best. It is kind of dark which shouldn’t come as a surprise given that the protagonist is an evil genius. This is a “movie” perfect for those who love musicals, dark comedy, Joss Whedon, or just a fun and enjoyable story.

******** 8/10

Iron Man

Title: Iron Man (2008)
Director: Jon Favreau
Genre: Action, Comic Book
Lead Actor(s): Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges
Rating: PG-13
126 Minutes

It took me an embarrassingly long time to see this movie. At first I just didn’t have much interesting. I had seen a few parts of the animated tv series and wasn’t that interested. Then everyone started raving about it and I felt like being a little defiant. Finally I saw it. I don’t remember how. I just know it wasn’t on the big screen and for that I am a bit sad. This is a refreshing gem of a superhero movie. Robert Downey Jr. makes the character of Tony Stark. In much the same way, few will soon be able to accept anyone but the late Heath Ledger as The Joker, few should be able to accept a substitution in this role. Given some of the more serious and dramatic elements of the film, it could have been weighed down by an absurd seriousness, in the same way Hulk or The Punisher were. Instead Downey is sarcastic and humorous even when being held captive by terrorists. He is able to possess likability while still kind of being an asshole. It is wonderful to have such a talented actor be able to recover from events in his past and not be a poor imitation of the actor he was before.

Jeff Bridges is actually a bit shocking in his role as Obadiah Stane. In the roles he is best remembered for to this point, he plays very much the same character, The Dude. Even after this movie, his Men Who Stare At Goats character is The Dude in the military. Here though he is a ruthless bastard. He cares about money, power, and little else. In the beginning though, he is able to come across as his carefully crafted public image. The surrogate father to a genius boy whose dad died too soon. It seems completely reasonable that in crafting his own metal warrior, the Iron Monger, he would want to go for the bigger more powerful even if it limits certain capabilities. It is utterly invigorating to see an actor so effectively stretch himself.

The rest of the supporting cast handle their roles with varying degrees of aptitude. Gwyneth Paltrow is fine as Pepper Potts, Tony’s personal assistant. It is nowhere near her best performance, but in a male dominated cast she does fine. Terrence Howard often seems a bit stiff in his role as Col. Rhodey. I don’t know that it was this reason they replaced him with Don Cheadle for the upcoming sequel. Rhodey is supposed to be the grounded one in his friendship with Stark. It would seem that Jude Law as Watson handles this role better in the similar situation in Sherlock Holmes. Faran Tahir is decent in his role as the head of the terrorist organization The Ten Rings. It seemed a bit stereotyped, but comic book villains often are.

Jon Favreau, probably best known as the fat best friend to the dashing leading man, does a good job at directing. Having never directed a superhero movie or even an action movie, Favreau could have leaned on the various clichés that sort of doomed Superman Returns. Instead Favreau made a good movie. It is as simple as that. The editing is sharp and not overdone, as are the effects. Tony Stark is more dimensional, while still being the typical millionaire playboy. My favorite, and in my opinion most defining shot, of the movie last less than a minute. Stark is in the process of building his make-shift Iron Man suit in the terrorist cave and is banging the armor out on an anvil. It does not sound like much, but every time I watch the movie, I am struck by that simple shot. This really is a great movie with a promising franchise. The scene after the credits can make geeks scream with excitement like 4-year-old girls just given a pony. Even if you typically don’t go for the comic book movies, this one, along with Dark Knight, is at the pinnacle of greatness in the genre.

******** 8/10

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Title: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Director: Steven Spielberg
Genre: Action
Lead Actor(s): Harrison Ford
Rating: PG-13
122 minutes

This is the only movie I ever wanted to walk out of. I think I usually am good about knowing what movies I will and won’t like. As such I don’t feel I see a lot of bad movies, but when the new installation of Indiana Jones came out, I really wanted to see it. I grew up on the three earlier movies. It was such a disappointment.

First, Shia LeBeouf is ridiculous as Indy’s son. We don’t want to see an archeologist playboy saddled with a son. That would be like James Bond with a son. Second, Harrison Ford is far too old to be jumping back into this heavily physical role. We wouldn’t want to see him back as Han Solo. Seeing such an iconic character age is disappointing, especially when you have grown up with him being a bad-ass.

The entire script is ridiculous. It involves aliens. Indy has no business battling aliens. He also hides from a nuclear test blast in an old refrigerator. Sure the old Indy battle Nazis and looked for the Holy Grail, but it never seemed ridiculous. This one does. The dialogue at times seems non-existent. It also doesn’t have the feel of the older Indys. Everything is much cleaner. The other films felt more realistic and grittier.

Cate Blanchett does her best as the villain, but there isn’t much material for her to work with her. At one point one of her minions is eaten by ants. She could have been an interesting character, but instead she becomes a crazed stereotype.

If it hadn’t been an Indiana Jones movie, it might have been more well-received, but it pales in comparison to the older ones. I don’t understand why they couldn’t have “rebooted” the series. With a fresh insight, a fresh direction, and a fresh Indy, it could have been a wonderful introduction to a new audience. That being said, please don’t make Shia LeBeouf the new Indiana Jones.

** 2/10