This is a call-Sam-Gooley-after-it's-over (CSGAIO) movie, and by CSGAIO, I mean it's really stinkin' good. Like classic romantic comedy good. And if you want to know why - well, read along with me...
First off, (500) Days of Summer is a fresh new take on romantic comedies. By experimenting with new ways of filmmaking and storytelling, (500) Days doesn't fit the cookie-cutter image of your run-of-the-mill, "starring Kate Hudson" romantic comedy. Here are 3 reasons why:
1. It starts with the cast. Does anyone remember Joseph Gordon Lovett as anyone except the kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun? Even when I saw 10 Things I Hate About You, I thought, "Dude, that's the kid from 3rd Rock, ain't it?" And Zooey Deschanel, does anyone remember her as anyone othern than William Miller's sister in Almost Famous, or as an elf lover in ... well ... Elf? Because these actors aren't superstars, I believe the audience will watch the movie without any pre-conceived notions of how they're supposed to act; thus putting more faith in the story itself and the characters within it.
(If anyone even thinks about Failure to Launch during any part of this review, I will somehow find out; and I will laugh at you. Has anyone seen that episode of Family Guy when Peter talks about sitting through that movie? If not, watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BtFScDdki0 Classic. It's all I think about whenever anyone mentions that God-awful movie.)
2. It "Tarantino's" the plot. Much like the the work of Inglourious Basterds director Quentin Tarantino, (500) Days jumps around in time so that we don't get bored with the same plotlines of every relationship movie ever. Tom and Summer go through all the same challenges couples go through -- that part doesn't (and really can't, if you think about it) change -- but by putting a number on each day, we look forward to which part comes next.
3. It utilizes old tools in new, innovative ways.
3a. Keen Narration. Our narrator sounds like a guy who does voiceovers for National Geographic specials. "There are two types of people in this world. There are men; and there are women," he says. While he sounds boring, the narrator only comes in at key points in the story (as opposed to parts in other films where narration is told in first person, and only summarizes the weaker parts of the storyline), and provides in-your-face commentary on how to react to what's going on. For example, we're quickly reminded that (500) Days of Summer isn't a love story; rather, it's a story about love. After we find out that Summer is not a season, but a character in the film, we should know that the relationship has a timeline.
3b. Split Screens. Quite possibly my favorite scene (other than the one I'm about to mention) is when we see that Tom's expectations of an upcoming event are greatly different than the reality that unfolds. Instead of playing his expectations, followed by the reality - director Marc Webb opts to use a split screen to give a side-by-side comparison of "Expectations" (left side of screen) versus "Reality" (right side of screen). It's a sad scene, but nonetheless brilliantly constructed.
3c. Soundtrack. My favorite scene is the musical number. Seriously, how can you not love a spontaneous dance sequence filmed to Hall & Oates' "You Make My Dreams Come True?" What better way to describe a feeling than that! Also, (500) Days does for Regina Spektor's heartwrenching voice what When Harry Met Sally did for Harry Connick Jr.'s laid-back jazz. I could go on for hours about this soundtrack, but only if a really desperate reader of this blog puts in a request.
What also makes it a near-classic is the chemistry between the characters, combined with the situations they are confronted with. As our narrator so eloquantly points out, Tom Hanson is a hopeless romantic who believes he will know the moment he finds "the one;" and Summer is the girl who doesn't share in his belief. How it all plays out is something for you to find out when you see it. (I mean, I can't explain it all for you. I gotta leave something for you to take with you to the theatre. Go see it. Seriously.)Yea, it's still a story of boy-meets-girl; and yea, it tells all the up's and down's of a modern-day relationship. What makes (500) Days of Summer one of the summer's greatest movies is the story itself, how how it's told unlike any other romantic comedy. And if you appreciate that, you will not leave disappointed.
The only reason why I deem this film to be a near-classic, and not a total classic, is because time plays a roll in the quality of romantic comedies. If you don't believe me, take Say Anything. It was a classic! ...when it came out. Who couldn't deny John Cusak pouring his heart out through the voice of Peter Gabriel. Seriously. I still can't wait to do that for a girl - it's pure ballsy. Now that it's been 20 years, people turn to When Harry Met Sally as the classic from the late 80's, and many times forget to mention Say Anything until someone (like me, who still loves it) brings it up. Another example: Love, Actually. We're quickly seeing this film dip into romantic comedy mediocrity, and why? Because there isn't a tag line that makes it stand the test of time. That sucks, because this film is awesome. Let's hope the Christmas motif allows it to at least be a turn-to during the holiday season.
(500) Days of Summer will be a film I remember forever. It got me. Now will it be remembered by everyone else - thus making it a classic? Only time will tell.
Grade: A
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Evaluating the BCS Era - Chris Miller's Take
For those of you starting to get sick of me taking 2 weeks to count down the Top Ten Films of the 2000s, here's a little something to get you thinking about next week.
What's coming next week, you ask?
GREAT question!
After the release of the #1 Film of the 2000s, we will be ringing in the new college football season by counting down the Top 10 Teams of the BCS Era.
Why did you just say, "we," Mike?
ANOTHER. GREAT. Question!
For those of you tired of Mike Sullivan rambling about movies all the time, I'll be having a few point-counterpoint evaluations with two of my best friends from high school who can carry their weight with college football knowledge: Chris Miller and Tyler Norris.
As mentioned in my article previewing the Best of the 2000s, Chris and I always catch up every August to preview the upcoming season; talk about how the SEC should break apart from the NCAA to start the Division 1-Alpha class; and predict which Big Ten team we get to toy with in January. He's a Georgia fan and alum; and I'm a Tar Heel whose heart rests in Florida. While we may not be the best of friends around Halloween (about the time of the Florida/Georgia game in Jacksonville, aka the World's Largest Cocktail Party), we're pretty tight for the other 11 weeks and bowl season. I'll be the first to admit that he knows more about college football than anyone else I know; and his opinion far out-weighs the fact that he pulls for Georgia.
Case-in-point, when I told him I was about to count down the Top Ten Teams of the BCS Era, he had his Top 10 sent to me the following morning, complete with director's-cut-worthy commentary for each pick. (If you think "director's-cut-worthy" is a complement, you are absolutely right.) Listed below is his word-for-word analysis of his Top Ten Individual Teams of the BCS Era, and your official preview to our next segment on Sully's World:
1. Miami Hurricanes (2001)
Incredible depth that the Detroit Lions would drool over. Starting NFL running backs on the BENCH for this team. Just obliterated people. #1 no doubt.
(Those NFL starting running backs - Clinton Portis, Willis McGahee, and Frank Gore - went to 4 Pro Bowls between them. Miami Hurricanes: 21 ... Detroit Lions: 17)
2. Texas Longhorns (2005)
This might actually be the best TEAM on the list, vs. the amazing collection of talent that Butch Davis put together in South Beach. Vince Young, regardless of his meltdown in Nashville, just could not be stopped in college; and this defense did just enough to stop the All-World Offense of the 2005 USC Trojans.
3. USC Trojans (2004)
The improved version of the 2003 team that split the title. Tons of NFL players on offense and a great defense (that the 2005 squad lacked) helped these Trojans make Bob Stoops and Oklahoma wish they never took the field.
(38 points in 20 minutes ... all in the first half.)
4. Florida State Seminoles (1999)
An offensive machine as usual with the Mark Richt Seminole offense of the 1990s. Throw in an undefeated season with wins over Miami, #3 Florida, and Michael Vick's Hokies, and the fact that this was the first wire-to-wire #1 in NCAA history, and you'll get a feel for how good this team really was.
(Peter Warrick, I hate you. These comments in parentheses are Mike, by the way.)
5. Florida Gators (2008)
The first non-undefeated team on the list could easily compete with the top teams. After an early season loss to an under-rated Ole Miss team, Tim Tebow personally saw to it that his team wouldn't lose again. With an offense with more weapons than Plaxico Burress at a night club, Coach Urban Meyer utilized his scheme to make this team very tough to stop. Stay tuned for the 2009 version.
(woo!)
6. Auburn Tigers (2004)
Think about it now, if an SEC team goes through the season undefeated and wins the SEC Championship, they have to go to the BCS Championship Game, right? Well, not so fast... Just as Oklahoma pulled off an "Ohio State vs. the SEC" performance in the title game, Auburn's four first-round draft picks did their usual work as Cadillac, Ronnie Brown, and friends did work to finish off the undefeated season in New Orleans.
7. LSU Tigers (2003)
Saban's only championship so far, this defense suffocated teams. Just ask "Heisman winner" Jason White. Justin Vincent and the running game was unstoppable and the other NFL talent on offense made this a great, great football team.
8. USC Trojans (2005)
An undefeated regular season with an other-worldly offense led ESPN to pit this team against the other great teams of all eras to decide if this was the greatest team ever. Then something happened. They played in the Rose Bowl. Against non-Pac 10 team who actually had something called a defense. Whose offense scored more points. Which means they won. Oops.
9. Tennessee Volunteers (1998)
The year after Archie's son graduates (without beating Florida, cough, cough), Coach Fulmer produces an undefeated season. A great stable of NFL running backs (Travis Henry, Travis Stephens, and Jamal Lewis), Peerless Price, and Al Wilson, and with a defense that shut down the younger-version-of-the-Seminoles-of-above with relative ease, this UT team captured the first BCS Championship.
10. Miami Hurricanes (2002)
Only Larry Coker could find a way to lose with this team. A VERY questionable pass interference call in the title game allowed Ohio State to stay alive and eventually "win" in overtime. This Hurricanes team had very similar talent to the 2001 version, and was nearly as dominant. It would've been scary to see what Butch Davis could have done with this team.
So what's missing? If you're thinking Boise St. or Utah, I intentionally left them off. Why? Less scholarships, less talent, less competition on a 12 game schedule. Sure they had great years, but Air Bud was a nice movie. Just doesn't measure up. And think about this: with Boise State and Utah's wins, is there any chance that the teams they beat were disappointed to be playing Boise State and Utah in those particular bowl games? Is it also possible that the underdogs played for respect while the big boys showed up expecting to win?
(I'd put the 2002 Ohio State team in that category: Less talent, less competition on a 12 game schedule, less points than pretty much every opponent they faced in January ever since... this team played a very cocky - and probably hungover - Miami team, whose coach was quickly proving himself to be the downfall of a dynasty. I would also say THE Ohio State University had less scholarships, but I think they recruited a couple pinstripe-wearing exchange students to play for them in the Championship Game, especially for that interference call. I want my 3rd OT, darnit!)
Agree with Chris' rational? Not like it? Feel free to post a comment or tell me how you feel. If you're a Big Ten fan, I BEG you to argue why your team should make this list. More on NCAA Football next week!
What's coming next week, you ask?
GREAT question!
After the release of the #1 Film of the 2000s, we will be ringing in the new college football season by counting down the Top 10 Teams of the BCS Era.
Why did you just say, "we," Mike?
ANOTHER. GREAT. Question!
For those of you tired of Mike Sullivan rambling about movies all the time, I'll be having a few point-counterpoint evaluations with two of my best friends from high school who can carry their weight with college football knowledge: Chris Miller and Tyler Norris.
As mentioned in my article previewing the Best of the 2000s, Chris and I always catch up every August to preview the upcoming season; talk about how the SEC should break apart from the NCAA to start the Division 1-Alpha class; and predict which Big Ten team we get to toy with in January. He's a Georgia fan and alum; and I'm a Tar Heel whose heart rests in Florida. While we may not be the best of friends around Halloween (about the time of the Florida/Georgia game in Jacksonville, aka the World's Largest Cocktail Party), we're pretty tight for the other 11 weeks and bowl season. I'll be the first to admit that he knows more about college football than anyone else I know; and his opinion far out-weighs the fact that he pulls for Georgia.
Case-in-point, when I told him I was about to count down the Top Ten Teams of the BCS Era, he had his Top 10 sent to me the following morning, complete with director's-cut-worthy commentary for each pick. (If you think "director's-cut-worthy" is a complement, you are absolutely right.) Listed below is his word-for-word analysis of his Top Ten Individual Teams of the BCS Era, and your official preview to our next segment on Sully's World:
1. Miami Hurricanes (2001)
Incredible depth that the Detroit Lions would drool over. Starting NFL running backs on the BENCH for this team. Just obliterated people. #1 no doubt.
(Those NFL starting running backs - Clinton Portis, Willis McGahee, and Frank Gore - went to 4 Pro Bowls between them. Miami Hurricanes: 21 ... Detroit Lions: 17)
2. Texas Longhorns (2005)
This might actually be the best TEAM on the list, vs. the amazing collection of talent that Butch Davis put together in South Beach. Vince Young, regardless of his meltdown in Nashville, just could not be stopped in college; and this defense did just enough to stop the All-World Offense of the 2005 USC Trojans.
3. USC Trojans (2004)
The improved version of the 2003 team that split the title. Tons of NFL players on offense and a great defense (that the 2005 squad lacked) helped these Trojans make Bob Stoops and Oklahoma wish they never took the field.
(38 points in 20 minutes ... all in the first half.)
4. Florida State Seminoles (1999)
An offensive machine as usual with the Mark Richt Seminole offense of the 1990s. Throw in an undefeated season with wins over Miami, #3 Florida, and Michael Vick's Hokies, and the fact that this was the first wire-to-wire #1 in NCAA history, and you'll get a feel for how good this team really was.
(Peter Warrick, I hate you. These comments in parentheses are Mike, by the way.)
5. Florida Gators (2008)
The first non-undefeated team on the list could easily compete with the top teams. After an early season loss to an under-rated Ole Miss team, Tim Tebow personally saw to it that his team wouldn't lose again. With an offense with more weapons than Plaxico Burress at a night club, Coach Urban Meyer utilized his scheme to make this team very tough to stop. Stay tuned for the 2009 version.
(woo!)
6. Auburn Tigers (2004)
Think about it now, if an SEC team goes through the season undefeated and wins the SEC Championship, they have to go to the BCS Championship Game, right? Well, not so fast... Just as Oklahoma pulled off an "Ohio State vs. the SEC" performance in the title game, Auburn's four first-round draft picks did their usual work as Cadillac, Ronnie Brown, and friends did work to finish off the undefeated season in New Orleans.
7. LSU Tigers (2003)
Saban's only championship so far, this defense suffocated teams. Just ask "Heisman winner" Jason White. Justin Vincent and the running game was unstoppable and the other NFL talent on offense made this a great, great football team.
8. USC Trojans (2005)
An undefeated regular season with an other-worldly offense led ESPN to pit this team against the other great teams of all eras to decide if this was the greatest team ever. Then something happened. They played in the Rose Bowl. Against non-Pac 10 team who actually had something called a defense. Whose offense scored more points. Which means they won. Oops.
9. Tennessee Volunteers (1998)
The year after Archie's son graduates (without beating Florida, cough, cough), Coach Fulmer produces an undefeated season. A great stable of NFL running backs (Travis Henry, Travis Stephens, and Jamal Lewis), Peerless Price, and Al Wilson, and with a defense that shut down the younger-version-of-the-Seminoles-of-above with relative ease, this UT team captured the first BCS Championship.
10. Miami Hurricanes (2002)
Only Larry Coker could find a way to lose with this team. A VERY questionable pass interference call in the title game allowed Ohio State to stay alive and eventually "win" in overtime. This Hurricanes team had very similar talent to the 2001 version, and was nearly as dominant. It would've been scary to see what Butch Davis could have done with this team.
So what's missing? If you're thinking Boise St. or Utah, I intentionally left them off. Why? Less scholarships, less talent, less competition on a 12 game schedule. Sure they had great years, but Air Bud was a nice movie. Just doesn't measure up. And think about this: with Boise State and Utah's wins, is there any chance that the teams they beat were disappointed to be playing Boise State and Utah in those particular bowl games? Is it also possible that the underdogs played for respect while the big boys showed up expecting to win?
(I'd put the 2002 Ohio State team in that category: Less talent, less competition on a 12 game schedule, less points than pretty much every opponent they faced in January ever since... this team played a very cocky - and probably hungover - Miami team, whose coach was quickly proving himself to be the downfall of a dynasty. I would also say THE Ohio State University had less scholarships, but I think they recruited a couple pinstripe-wearing exchange students to play for them in the Championship Game, especially for that interference call. I want my 3rd OT, darnit!)
Agree with Chris' rational? Not like it? Feel free to post a comment or tell me how you feel. If you're a Big Ten fan, I BEG you to argue why your team should make this list. More on NCAA Football next week!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
#8 Film of the 2000s: Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)
Just before getting off the phone with partner-in-crime movie critic Sam Gooley, I wanted to create a pull for him to read this write-up for Good Night, and Good Luck. When he asked me about the #8 Film of the 2000s, I told him, "it's a movie we both love and admire, yet it is a movie that none of our friends have seen or even heard of." He immdediately told me to shut up, hang up, and write this piece so he could find out as soon as possible what it was. Honestly, I thought it would be obvious; however, I realized 2 things:
1. We've seen a lot of good movies that none of our friends have never heard of, and
2. My "teaser trailer" for this article proved to be a success.
For those of you -- which will probably be most of you -- who have never seen Good Night, and Good Luck, let me provide a basic overview before delving into my criticism and reasoning behind the film's excellence.
What's not to like?
First, its stellar cast includes George Clooney (who wrote and directed the film), Robert Downey Jr., Frank Langella (the guy who played President Nixon in Frost/Nixon), and Jeff Daniels (best known as Harry from Dumb & Dumber). It also stars David Strathairn, who you may know as Meryl Streep's husband in The River Wild, the guy who oversees the women's baseball league in A League of their Own, or 50's pimp and Fleur-de-Lis owner Pierce Patchett in LA Confidential. If you enjoy good films with big stars, you'll get no shortage of them here.
Second, it's a history lesson covering one of the biggest moments in journalism history. It takes place during the Red Scare when Senator Joseph McCarthy was accusing everyone of being a Communist. While a small handful of writers spoke out against McCarthy's witchhunt, no broadcast journalist had the courage to stand up against him until CBS anchor Edward R. Murrow dedicated an entire episode of his nightly news program "See it Now" to McCarthy's outlandish behavior. Good Night, and Good Luck covers the preparation, airing, and impact of that episode.
Third, it's critically acclaimed. On top of winning the SG Award for Best Picture of 2005, Good Night, and Good Luck was nominated for 6 Academy Awards - including Best Picture, Best Actor (Strathairn), and Best Director (Clooney) - and received a positive review from 94% of critics across the country (Rotten Tomatoes).
So why have you not seen it?
Why does a film with all these big stars ... a film that covers a major topic in US History ... and a film that receives accolades from critics across the country ... why does a film like Good Night, and Good Luck go unnoticed by the almost everyone?
The answer - and bare with me as I explain this - is that Good Night, and Good Luck is a symbol in of itself. The film works as an essay; and its thesis claims that nothing of true importance or objectivity can be found in the world of television anymore. The American viewer no longer cares about "just-the-facts" reporting; rather, the American viewer wants to be entertained by corporations who create news - not report it - in order to earn higher ratings and charge more for advertising.
Take the following quote from Murrow in 1958, and tell me if you can relate any of it to what you currently see on television:
We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable, and complacent ... Unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.
- Edward R. Murrow, 1958
Do those words seem like a prophecy to anyone other than me? How could Murrow successfully predict the television paradox of the 21st century? How could he have known that the same programs we turn to for mindless entertainment and uselessness be at the same time the programs we rely on to provide an honest interpretation of the realities of the world, its politics, and current events? Unfortunately, I cannot answer these questions with any sense of certainty or confidence; rather, a mere speculation that Murrow himself would call libel and editorializing.
Another reason why you haven't seen this movie? Well, it's a movie about journalism. No movie about journalism has really taken over at the box office. If you check out boxofficemojo.com, you'll see Bruce Almighty and Marley and Me as the only News/Broadcasting films to top $100 million. Good Night and Good Luck earned $31 million, and ranks behind Fletch Lives as the 15th highest grossing film under the News/Broadcasting umbrella. Just to name a few other #15's: the #15 Christmas film (This Christmas) earned $49 million; the #15 Comic Book adaptation (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) earned $180 million; and the #15 Slacker/Stoner film (yes, there's a category called Slacker/Stoner, and #15 is Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay) earned $38 million.
A third reason you haven't seen Good Night and Good Luck, is due to its lack of popcorn entertainment. Such films lack promotability from their respective marketing companies. Because the thesis of Good Night, and Good Luck highlights the true values of "just-the-facts" reporting, the film itself is a short, concise, "just-the-facts" piece that lasts 89 minutes. You won't hear a sweeping score by John Williams; you won't hear a theme song by Randy Newman; you won't see any needless subplots that provide thorough backdrops of every character; and you surely won't see action scenes with slow-motion crashes or stunts. Nope, this film is edited down to the very core of its storyline ... which, in my opinion, is exactly why it is so effective. It isn't a drama, or even a docu-drama for that matter. It's a period piece and an essay; and it never strays from its thesis.
(This is the point of the article where the average viewer would say, "Dang, Mike. It seems like this movie will be pretty boring. Where's all the excitement?" To which I would reply, "Actually, I was on the edge of my seat for the entire movie. Without any useless flashbacks, musical numbers, or slow-motion sequences, Good Night, and Good Luck gets straight to the goods and never allows you to take a break. You probably haven't seen a movie like that before, have you?" The average viewer would answer, "Not really," and I would say, "You should." )
Why you should see Good Night, and Good Luck
1. As mentioned before, it is a symbol in of itself. Two other films you will see later in my Top Ten will fit within this category as well -- they exemplify the very point they're trying to prove. (A hint to those who are actually reading this article, and who actually want to know what lies ahead: they're both about memories, how we create them, and how we choose to remember or forget them). Good Night, and Good Luck is portrayed as true, fact-based journalism, and its plot portrays true, fact-based journalism in action. It's about 1950's television, and very much looks like 1950's television: 1.) it's filmed in black-and-white; 2.) Cinematographer Robert Elswit frames David Strathairn in several scenes just as the television camera frames Murrow while he's on the air. (Several of the camera angles pay direct homage to 1950's ads in Life magazine.); and 3.) the pace of the film is very controlled - quick, necessary, and unemotional. It's unrelenting, matter-of-fact, and doesn't apologize for its presentation or it's delivery.
2. It uses history to provide commentary on what television has become. For those of you who may not be aware of broadcast television: Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are for-profit corporations. Their bottom line depends on the ratings they receive and the ad space they sell - not necessarily the quality of journalism permeating their newsrooms. Do I think there's a problem with news corporations putting out stories in order to make a profit? Absolutely not. Do I think there's a problem with viewers interpreting these news stories as truth, and not bothering to ask why these stories were published in the first place? Absolutely.
With that said, imagine the stories published in the fall of 1953, when McCarthyism reached its peak. News stations were either spreading the fear that Communists were infiltrating our country and government (a fear which gave power to Senator McCarthy); or opting not to confront the famous false-accuser from Wisconsin, (which in turn gave leverage to Senator McCarthy). Either way, Senator McCarthy's rise to power was quick, emotional, and entirely unquestioned; and what fueled it? The constant publication of what America didn't want to happen. Unfortunately, American journalists weren't reporting on what was actually happening.
When Murrow decides to run the story against Senator McCarthy in Good Night, and Good Luck, he faces two immediate set-backs: His show loses its sponsors, and his producers strongly caution him against editorializing the facts. Can you imagine, in today's society, Coke or Pepsi refusing to run an ad on Fox News because Bill O'Reilly bashes democrats on his show? Absolutely not! Half the reason so many people watch his show in the first place is to watch him go off on a left-wing guest speaker. It's true! Along the same lines, do you honestly think Democrats would boycott Coke or Pepsi for running a commercial during an episode of The O'Reilly Factor? Wouldn't that be something.
What makes Good Night, and Good Luck special is the value it places on non-biased reporting. The characters don't make money, but at the same time won't hesitate to reach into their pockets to make sure both sides of a story are covered. While the rest of the country is afraid of being called a Communist, a few men chose to stand up against a tyrant who gains power by spreading fear and accusing all opponents of supporting the enemy.
Writer/director George Clooney's thesis, as so eloquently described by Murrow in the final lines, wants us to believe that men of this unflinching character still exist in the world today. Unfortunately, it will take a man of Murrow's stature and character to stand out from the crowd and reinstill the spirit of informative, educational journalism in our society. Otherwise, television will become "merely wires and lights in a box."
3. It's perfectly made. I mean perfect. There is never a wasted scene, a wasted shot, or a wasted line. Every second of dialogue, music, or silence justifies its inclusion within the film. While only 89 minutes long, Good Night, and Good Luck is so dense with information that I discover new mannerisms, asides, and symbolisms with each viewing. On top of that, each shot is so crisp, so symbolic, it's as if we're witnessing history unfold before our eyes in a smoky, black-and-white world we now know as the 1950s.
(Three hidden treasures I found after multiple viewings:
1. The importance Jazz singer Diana Reeves' character. The first time I saw Good Night, and Good Luck, I thought she was merely a character for CBS who simultaneously provided the score. Somewhere between my second and tenth viewing, I started paying attention to her lyrics and freaked out over how much they reflected the mood of the film. Do you remember the guy who sings the theme from There's Something About Mary, and appears randomly throughout the film to serenade us about what's going on in Ted's mind? That's Diana Reeves, but in this film she doesn't sing to us directly; rather, she plays a recording artist at CBS whose studio work is combined with the action of the characters, thus providing us with a rather insightful score. For example, Reeves sings over the opening credits, and introduces our audience to the ever-growing popularity of television with the song, "TV is the Thing This Year." Also, just after Murrow delivers the "Dear Brutus" speech, Ms. Reeves sings a song that sums up what I believe to be Senator McCarthy's reaction. It's called "I've Got My Eyes on You," and the lyrics are as follows:
I've got my eyes on you, so best beware where you roam..
I've got my eyes on you, so don't stray too far from home.
I've set my spies on you
I'm checking all you do, from A to Z.
So darling, just be wise and keep your eyes on me.
The next time we see Senator McCarthy on screen, he has sent out his spies against Murrow; he attacks Murrow's past; and accuses Murrow of running a smear campaign against him. It's almost as if Diana Reeves knew it was about to happen...
2. Murrow's facial expressions in the Liberace interview. God, that was funny.
3. The shot where Murrow is sitting at the typewriter writing his piece on Senator McCarthy. After saying, "It's Shakespeare," the camera pans out to show Murrow sitting alone in an office amongst several empty typewriters; and the only sounds we hear are the clicks of his typing. Why do I think this shot is cool? It's because Murrow is the only jornalist willing to take a stand; his voice is the only one speaking out; and he is the only one making noise in a sea of silence. His typewriter makes noise, while the other typewriters are not only unoccupied, but deserted.)
I couldn't see Good Night, and Good Luck one time. The rewatchability factor scores a 10 based solely on the fact that it is impossible to absorb the total picture of this film after only one viewing. I remember the first time I saw the film. I called Sam immediately after the credits ended (we always call each other immediately after we watch a great movie -- it's an unwritten rule). His first words: "Yea, it was perfect, wasn't it? I thought so, too. Now you gotta see it again to understand why it's perfect." Now that I think about it, that may be the most simple review/recommendation I ever heard about Good Night, and Good Luck. While it's such a quick, matter-of-fact film, Good Night, and Good Luck has yet to receive a quick, matter-of-fact review; or at least I haven't found one yet.
It's tough to describe perfection. It's pretty much impossible. You can spend hours upon hours of piecing facts together, only to come up with the same two-word conclusion: it's perfect. I dare you to call Citizen Kane, "a basic movie about a kid who loses it all in the process of becoming wealthy." It would be an insult to the film itself. If you were to call Good Night, and Good Luck "a basic movie about Murrow vs. McCarthy," it would be a similar insult.
For all you readers who have never seen Good Night, and Good Luck, I ask you to see it. Perhaps it'll inspire you to become one of the great people George Clooney believes still exist in America.
For all you readers who have already seen it, I suggest you see it again. I've written over 2,000 words attempting to justify Good Night, and Good Luck's perfection, but all I really needed is Sam's ten-word summary: "It's perfect; see it again to find why it's perfect."
1. We've seen a lot of good movies that none of our friends have never heard of, and
2. My "teaser trailer" for this article proved to be a success.
For those of you -- which will probably be most of you -- who have never seen Good Night, and Good Luck, let me provide a basic overview before delving into my criticism and reasoning behind the film's excellence.
What's not to like?
First, its stellar cast includes George Clooney (who wrote and directed the film), Robert Downey Jr., Frank Langella (the guy who played President Nixon in Frost/Nixon), and Jeff Daniels (best known as Harry from Dumb & Dumber). It also stars David Strathairn, who you may know as Meryl Streep's husband in The River Wild, the guy who oversees the women's baseball league in A League of their Own, or 50's pimp and Fleur-de-Lis owner Pierce Patchett in LA Confidential. If you enjoy good films with big stars, you'll get no shortage of them here.
Second, it's a history lesson covering one of the biggest moments in journalism history. It takes place during the Red Scare when Senator Joseph McCarthy was accusing everyone of being a Communist. While a small handful of writers spoke out against McCarthy's witchhunt, no broadcast journalist had the courage to stand up against him until CBS anchor Edward R. Murrow dedicated an entire episode of his nightly news program "See it Now" to McCarthy's outlandish behavior. Good Night, and Good Luck covers the preparation, airing, and impact of that episode.
Third, it's critically acclaimed. On top of winning the SG Award for Best Picture of 2005, Good Night, and Good Luck was nominated for 6 Academy Awards - including Best Picture, Best Actor (Strathairn), and Best Director (Clooney) - and received a positive review from 94% of critics across the country (Rotten Tomatoes).
So why have you not seen it?
Why does a film with all these big stars ... a film that covers a major topic in US History ... and a film that receives accolades from critics across the country ... why does a film like Good Night, and Good Luck go unnoticed by the almost everyone?
The answer - and bare with me as I explain this - is that Good Night, and Good Luck is a symbol in of itself. The film works as an essay; and its thesis claims that nothing of true importance or objectivity can be found in the world of television anymore. The American viewer no longer cares about "just-the-facts" reporting; rather, the American viewer wants to be entertained by corporations who create news - not report it - in order to earn higher ratings and charge more for advertising.
Take the following quote from Murrow in 1958, and tell me if you can relate any of it to what you currently see on television:
We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable, and complacent ... Unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.
- Edward R. Murrow, 1958
Do those words seem like a prophecy to anyone other than me? How could Murrow successfully predict the television paradox of the 21st century? How could he have known that the same programs we turn to for mindless entertainment and uselessness be at the same time the programs we rely on to provide an honest interpretation of the realities of the world, its politics, and current events? Unfortunately, I cannot answer these questions with any sense of certainty or confidence; rather, a mere speculation that Murrow himself would call libel and editorializing.
Another reason why you haven't seen this movie? Well, it's a movie about journalism. No movie about journalism has really taken over at the box office. If you check out boxofficemojo.com, you'll see Bruce Almighty and Marley and Me as the only News/Broadcasting films to top $100 million. Good Night and Good Luck earned $31 million, and ranks behind Fletch Lives as the 15th highest grossing film under the News/Broadcasting umbrella. Just to name a few other #15's: the #15 Christmas film (This Christmas) earned $49 million; the #15 Comic Book adaptation (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) earned $180 million; and the #15 Slacker/Stoner film (yes, there's a category called Slacker/Stoner, and #15 is Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay) earned $38 million.
A third reason you haven't seen Good Night and Good Luck, is due to its lack of popcorn entertainment. Such films lack promotability from their respective marketing companies. Because the thesis of Good Night, and Good Luck highlights the true values of "just-the-facts" reporting, the film itself is a short, concise, "just-the-facts" piece that lasts 89 minutes. You won't hear a sweeping score by John Williams; you won't hear a theme song by Randy Newman; you won't see any needless subplots that provide thorough backdrops of every character; and you surely won't see action scenes with slow-motion crashes or stunts. Nope, this film is edited down to the very core of its storyline ... which, in my opinion, is exactly why it is so effective. It isn't a drama, or even a docu-drama for that matter. It's a period piece and an essay; and it never strays from its thesis.
(This is the point of the article where the average viewer would say, "Dang, Mike. It seems like this movie will be pretty boring. Where's all the excitement?" To which I would reply, "Actually, I was on the edge of my seat for the entire movie. Without any useless flashbacks, musical numbers, or slow-motion sequences, Good Night, and Good Luck gets straight to the goods and never allows you to take a break. You probably haven't seen a movie like that before, have you?" The average viewer would answer, "Not really," and I would say, "You should." )
Why you should see Good Night, and Good Luck
1. As mentioned before, it is a symbol in of itself. Two other films you will see later in my Top Ten will fit within this category as well -- they exemplify the very point they're trying to prove. (A hint to those who are actually reading this article, and who actually want to know what lies ahead: they're both about memories, how we create them, and how we choose to remember or forget them). Good Night, and Good Luck is portrayed as true, fact-based journalism, and its plot portrays true, fact-based journalism in action. It's about 1950's television, and very much looks like 1950's television: 1.) it's filmed in black-and-white; 2.) Cinematographer Robert Elswit frames David Strathairn in several scenes just as the television camera frames Murrow while he's on the air. (Several of the camera angles pay direct homage to 1950's ads in Life magazine.); and 3.) the pace of the film is very controlled - quick, necessary, and unemotional. It's unrelenting, matter-of-fact, and doesn't apologize for its presentation or it's delivery.
2. It uses history to provide commentary on what television has become. For those of you who may not be aware of broadcast television: Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are for-profit corporations. Their bottom line depends on the ratings they receive and the ad space they sell - not necessarily the quality of journalism permeating their newsrooms. Do I think there's a problem with news corporations putting out stories in order to make a profit? Absolutely not. Do I think there's a problem with viewers interpreting these news stories as truth, and not bothering to ask why these stories were published in the first place? Absolutely.
With that said, imagine the stories published in the fall of 1953, when McCarthyism reached its peak. News stations were either spreading the fear that Communists were infiltrating our country and government (a fear which gave power to Senator McCarthy); or opting not to confront the famous false-accuser from Wisconsin, (which in turn gave leverage to Senator McCarthy). Either way, Senator McCarthy's rise to power was quick, emotional, and entirely unquestioned; and what fueled it? The constant publication of what America didn't want to happen. Unfortunately, American journalists weren't reporting on what was actually happening.
When Murrow decides to run the story against Senator McCarthy in Good Night, and Good Luck, he faces two immediate set-backs: His show loses its sponsors, and his producers strongly caution him against editorializing the facts. Can you imagine, in today's society, Coke or Pepsi refusing to run an ad on Fox News because Bill O'Reilly bashes democrats on his show? Absolutely not! Half the reason so many people watch his show in the first place is to watch him go off on a left-wing guest speaker. It's true! Along the same lines, do you honestly think Democrats would boycott Coke or Pepsi for running a commercial during an episode of The O'Reilly Factor? Wouldn't that be something.
What makes Good Night, and Good Luck special is the value it places on non-biased reporting. The characters don't make money, but at the same time won't hesitate to reach into their pockets to make sure both sides of a story are covered. While the rest of the country is afraid of being called a Communist, a few men chose to stand up against a tyrant who gains power by spreading fear and accusing all opponents of supporting the enemy.
Writer/director George Clooney's thesis, as so eloquently described by Murrow in the final lines, wants us to believe that men of this unflinching character still exist in the world today. Unfortunately, it will take a man of Murrow's stature and character to stand out from the crowd and reinstill the spirit of informative, educational journalism in our society. Otherwise, television will become "merely wires and lights in a box."
3. It's perfectly made. I mean perfect. There is never a wasted scene, a wasted shot, or a wasted line. Every second of dialogue, music, or silence justifies its inclusion within the film. While only 89 minutes long, Good Night, and Good Luck is so dense with information that I discover new mannerisms, asides, and symbolisms with each viewing. On top of that, each shot is so crisp, so symbolic, it's as if we're witnessing history unfold before our eyes in a smoky, black-and-white world we now know as the 1950s.
(Three hidden treasures I found after multiple viewings:
1. The importance Jazz singer Diana Reeves' character. The first time I saw Good Night, and Good Luck, I thought she was merely a character for CBS who simultaneously provided the score. Somewhere between my second and tenth viewing, I started paying attention to her lyrics and freaked out over how much they reflected the mood of the film. Do you remember the guy who sings the theme from There's Something About Mary, and appears randomly throughout the film to serenade us about what's going on in Ted's mind? That's Diana Reeves, but in this film she doesn't sing to us directly; rather, she plays a recording artist at CBS whose studio work is combined with the action of the characters, thus providing us with a rather insightful score. For example, Reeves sings over the opening credits, and introduces our audience to the ever-growing popularity of television with the song, "TV is the Thing This Year." Also, just after Murrow delivers the "Dear Brutus" speech, Ms. Reeves sings a song that sums up what I believe to be Senator McCarthy's reaction. It's called "I've Got My Eyes on You," and the lyrics are as follows:
I've got my eyes on you, so best beware where you roam..
I've got my eyes on you, so don't stray too far from home.
I've set my spies on you
I'm checking all you do, from A to Z.
So darling, just be wise and keep your eyes on me.
The next time we see Senator McCarthy on screen, he has sent out his spies against Murrow; he attacks Murrow's past; and accuses Murrow of running a smear campaign against him. It's almost as if Diana Reeves knew it was about to happen...
2. Murrow's facial expressions in the Liberace interview. God, that was funny.
3. The shot where Murrow is sitting at the typewriter writing his piece on Senator McCarthy. After saying, "It's Shakespeare," the camera pans out to show Murrow sitting alone in an office amongst several empty typewriters; and the only sounds we hear are the clicks of his typing. Why do I think this shot is cool? It's because Murrow is the only jornalist willing to take a stand; his voice is the only one speaking out; and he is the only one making noise in a sea of silence. His typewriter makes noise, while the other typewriters are not only unoccupied, but deserted.)
I couldn't see Good Night, and Good Luck one time. The rewatchability factor scores a 10 based solely on the fact that it is impossible to absorb the total picture of this film after only one viewing. I remember the first time I saw the film. I called Sam immediately after the credits ended (we always call each other immediately after we watch a great movie -- it's an unwritten rule). His first words: "Yea, it was perfect, wasn't it? I thought so, too. Now you gotta see it again to understand why it's perfect." Now that I think about it, that may be the most simple review/recommendation I ever heard about Good Night, and Good Luck. While it's such a quick, matter-of-fact film, Good Night, and Good Luck has yet to receive a quick, matter-of-fact review; or at least I haven't found one yet.
It's tough to describe perfection. It's pretty much impossible. You can spend hours upon hours of piecing facts together, only to come up with the same two-word conclusion: it's perfect. I dare you to call Citizen Kane, "a basic movie about a kid who loses it all in the process of becoming wealthy." It would be an insult to the film itself. If you were to call Good Night, and Good Luck "a basic movie about Murrow vs. McCarthy," it would be a similar insult.
For all you readers who have never seen Good Night, and Good Luck, I ask you to see it. Perhaps it'll inspire you to become one of the great people George Clooney believes still exist in America.
For all you readers who have already seen it, I suggest you see it again. I've written over 2,000 words attempting to justify Good Night, and Good Luck's perfection, but all I really needed is Sam's ten-word summary: "It's perfect; see it again to find why it's perfect."
Monday, August 17, 2009
#9 Film of the 2000s: Finding Nemo
Quick question to all the readers about to criticize me for putting a Disney cartoon ahead of five Best Picture winners (Slumdog Millionaire, The Departed, Chicago, Million Dollar Baby and No Country for Old Men) and two classic guy-movies (The Dark Knight and Kill Bill Vol 1 & 2):
What are the Top 10 Greatest Animated Films of All Time?
Do you have them? Have you thought long and hard? I'll give you some time if you want to think about it. Go ahead...
Ok, ready?
Now do me another favor. Go ahead and tell me which of your Top 10 Animated Films were NOT Disney movies.
How many? One? Maybe? And it was Shrek?
Or, if you like anime, do you think Spirited Away matches up with the rest? C'mon.
My Top Ten:
1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. This is what started it all. As the first full-length animated picture, Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs created an empire from a lost princess, a Prince Charming, and seven little friends that have never been happier going to work all the live-long day. Everyone you know can sing along; everyone you know has compared themselves to one of the dwarfs; and everyone has either grown up wanting to be rescued or wanting to recscue a princess.
2. Pinocchio. Yea, I wish upon a star. I wish upon one every night I star-gaze. My conscience is also my guide. Why shouldn't it be? It's common sense to let your own personal Jiminy Cricket (and not those around you) guide the decisions you make. Common sense, however, doesn't seem so common in the world I love in. Because of that, I feel more people may need to take Pinocchio more seriously.
3. The Lion King. This epic tale of redemption and fulfillment of destiny was the last gasp for non-computer-animated features. It was also Disney's crowning achievement before ...
4. Toy Story issued in a new era of animated filmmaking. If you think Toy Story was a simple story of toys who come to life when their owner is gone, try this analogy on for size:
Woody = all hand-drawn animated pictures ... everything we've known until now.
Buzz = the new wave of animation. He's flashy, advanced, and represents all that kids want. He's an astronaut, the new wave that explores new galaxies and takes us to inifinity and beyond.
Andy = all children. Woody and Buzz will compete for the attention and respect of Andy, who is growing wiser and more mature by the minute.
For ten years after Toy Story's release, America's young audience experienced a new wave that seems here to stay. After seeing Toy Story, A Bug's Life, and Monster's Inc, hand-drawn films like Mulan and Tarzan lose their quality and crispness. While neither Mulan nor Tarzan lack a strong storyline (both can be linked to the coming-of-age plot of The Lion King without much difficulty... if the oven ain't broke, don't fix it... also, Woody's character in Toy Story didn't lack depth either), the flash of something new and exciting can easily steal the interest of children across the country (much like how Buzz's gadgets - not personality - steal the interest of Andy).
So take THAT analogy and go think about it for a while ...
...While I get to #5: Finding Nemo, aka the #9 film of the decade.
(If you want to know #6-#10, you won't get a detailed analysis. #6. Fantasia. #7. Beauty and the Beast. #8. The Land Before Time. #9. The Sword in the Stone. #10. Sleeping Beauty. Cinderella's for sissies.)
What makes Finding Nemo a classic Disney movie? Well, let's go over a classic-Disney-movie checklist, and check off the qualities that Nemo fits.
Question 1: Does it star a youth who has lost a parent? See: Snow White (both parents), Bambi (mom), Dumbo (parents), Pinocchio (mom), and Simba (dad).
Answer: Yes. What I always forget is the tragedy of Finding Nemo's opening scene. After Marlin's wife and all of his children are eaten by a barracuda, he becomes the over-protective father to the only child he has left. Such tragedy sets the tone for all Disney classics.
Question 2: Does this young character experience a growth period with strange characters in order to discover himself or herself? See: Snow White's dwarfs, Simba's Timon and Pumba, and Belle's clock, tea cups, and candlestick.
Answer: Yes, two times. While Marlin embarks on a rescue mission involving a blue fish with short-term memory loss, three fish-a-holic sharks, and a stoner turtle, Nemo finds himself doing a stint in a dentist's aquarioum. The inhabitants include a french-accented cleaning machine, a blow-fish with a temper problem, and a mysterious escape artist named Gill,voiced by Willem Dafoe. After his hilarious initiation atop Mount Wanna-hock-a-loogie, Nemo gains acceptance and respect for the first time in his life. Only then does he acquire the confidence needed to help Gill plan their daring escape.
Question 3: After the growth period, does this character face the ultimate challenge? See: Pinocchio goes inside a whale to recue Geppetto; Arthur slays the dragon; and Simba challenges Scar.
Yes, two times. Nemo not only risks his life clogging the water filter, he fakes his own death in order to get flushed down a drain. Then, when he finally reunites with Marlin, Nemo chooses to risk his life yet again in order to save a squad of fish about to be captured by a boat in Sydney's harbor. Marlin, on the other hand, must let Nemo motivate these fish to save themselves. Now that he's learned how to let go, Marlin must allow Nemo to risk his own life in order to save others.
Question 4: Does the film have morals that appeal to adults too? See: Bambi (Don't kill deer); Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Sleeping Beauty (all men have a beauty to rescue); and Robin Hood (help those who can't help themselves).
Answer: Yes. Let your children grow up. Let them make mistakes. After laying a proper foundation, let them become who they were meant to be.
Question 5: Does it have great animation? See: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (the first animated feature film), Fantasia (still trippy to this day), and Toy Story (first CGI feature film).
Answer: Take a look at Nemo's field trip to the drop-off. There's a 15-second introduction to Australia's Great Barrier Reef that'll leave your eyes and mouth gaping open. Thanks to its keen attention to detail (and endless studying of marine life), Finding Nemo nails the swimming behavior of each of its characters. You can also see every scale on a fish's skin, every tastebud of a whale's tongue, and every feather on a pelican's head.
Finding Nemo is a classic film, all the way. It also happens to be animated. It takes CGI to a whole new level, and has a story deep enough to be compared to the great hand-drawn classics of Disney past. It has humor appealing to kids and parents alike, and has drama that'll bring a tear to anyone's eye. Emotionally gripping, visually breathtaking, and socially conscious, Finding Nemo is a Top Ten Film of the 2000s.
What are the Top 10 Greatest Animated Films of All Time?
Do you have them? Have you thought long and hard? I'll give you some time if you want to think about it. Go ahead...
Ok, ready?
Now do me another favor. Go ahead and tell me which of your Top 10 Animated Films were NOT Disney movies.
How many? One? Maybe? And it was Shrek?
Or, if you like anime, do you think Spirited Away matches up with the rest? C'mon.
My Top Ten:
1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. This is what started it all. As the first full-length animated picture, Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs created an empire from a lost princess, a Prince Charming, and seven little friends that have never been happier going to work all the live-long day. Everyone you know can sing along; everyone you know has compared themselves to one of the dwarfs; and everyone has either grown up wanting to be rescued or wanting to recscue a princess.
2. Pinocchio. Yea, I wish upon a star. I wish upon one every night I star-gaze. My conscience is also my guide. Why shouldn't it be? It's common sense to let your own personal Jiminy Cricket (and not those around you) guide the decisions you make. Common sense, however, doesn't seem so common in the world I love in. Because of that, I feel more people may need to take Pinocchio more seriously.
3. The Lion King. This epic tale of redemption and fulfillment of destiny was the last gasp for non-computer-animated features. It was also Disney's crowning achievement before ...
4. Toy Story issued in a new era of animated filmmaking. If you think Toy Story was a simple story of toys who come to life when their owner is gone, try this analogy on for size:
Woody = all hand-drawn animated pictures ... everything we've known until now.
Buzz = the new wave of animation. He's flashy, advanced, and represents all that kids want. He's an astronaut, the new wave that explores new galaxies and takes us to inifinity and beyond.
Andy = all children. Woody and Buzz will compete for the attention and respect of Andy, who is growing wiser and more mature by the minute.
For ten years after Toy Story's release, America's young audience experienced a new wave that seems here to stay. After seeing Toy Story, A Bug's Life, and Monster's Inc, hand-drawn films like Mulan and Tarzan lose their quality and crispness. While neither Mulan nor Tarzan lack a strong storyline (both can be linked to the coming-of-age plot of The Lion King without much difficulty... if the oven ain't broke, don't fix it... also, Woody's character in Toy Story didn't lack depth either), the flash of something new and exciting can easily steal the interest of children across the country (much like how Buzz's gadgets - not personality - steal the interest of Andy).
So take THAT analogy and go think about it for a while ...
...While I get to #5: Finding Nemo, aka the #9 film of the decade.
(If you want to know #6-#10, you won't get a detailed analysis. #6. Fantasia. #7. Beauty and the Beast. #8. The Land Before Time. #9. The Sword in the Stone. #10. Sleeping Beauty. Cinderella's for sissies.)
What makes Finding Nemo a classic Disney movie? Well, let's go over a classic-Disney-movie checklist, and check off the qualities that Nemo fits.
Question 1: Does it star a youth who has lost a parent? See: Snow White (both parents), Bambi (mom), Dumbo (parents), Pinocchio (mom), and Simba (dad).
Answer: Yes. What I always forget is the tragedy of Finding Nemo's opening scene. After Marlin's wife and all of his children are eaten by a barracuda, he becomes the over-protective father to the only child he has left. Such tragedy sets the tone for all Disney classics.
Question 2: Does this young character experience a growth period with strange characters in order to discover himself or herself? See: Snow White's dwarfs, Simba's Timon and Pumba, and Belle's clock, tea cups, and candlestick.
Answer: Yes, two times. While Marlin embarks on a rescue mission involving a blue fish with short-term memory loss, three fish-a-holic sharks, and a stoner turtle, Nemo finds himself doing a stint in a dentist's aquarioum. The inhabitants include a french-accented cleaning machine, a blow-fish with a temper problem, and a mysterious escape artist named Gill,voiced by Willem Dafoe. After his hilarious initiation atop Mount Wanna-hock-a-loogie, Nemo gains acceptance and respect for the first time in his life. Only then does he acquire the confidence needed to help Gill plan their daring escape.
Question 3: After the growth period, does this character face the ultimate challenge? See: Pinocchio goes inside a whale to recue Geppetto; Arthur slays the dragon; and Simba challenges Scar.
Yes, two times. Nemo not only risks his life clogging the water filter, he fakes his own death in order to get flushed down a drain. Then, when he finally reunites with Marlin, Nemo chooses to risk his life yet again in order to save a squad of fish about to be captured by a boat in Sydney's harbor. Marlin, on the other hand, must let Nemo motivate these fish to save themselves. Now that he's learned how to let go, Marlin must allow Nemo to risk his own life in order to save others.
Question 4: Does the film have morals that appeal to adults too? See: Bambi (Don't kill deer); Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Sleeping Beauty (all men have a beauty to rescue); and Robin Hood (help those who can't help themselves).
Answer: Yes. Let your children grow up. Let them make mistakes. After laying a proper foundation, let them become who they were meant to be.
Question 5: Does it have great animation? See: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (the first animated feature film), Fantasia (still trippy to this day), and Toy Story (first CGI feature film).
Answer: Take a look at Nemo's field trip to the drop-off. There's a 15-second introduction to Australia's Great Barrier Reef that'll leave your eyes and mouth gaping open. Thanks to its keen attention to detail (and endless studying of marine life), Finding Nemo nails the swimming behavior of each of its characters. You can also see every scale on a fish's skin, every tastebud of a whale's tongue, and every feather on a pelican's head.
Finding Nemo is a classic film, all the way. It also happens to be animated. It takes CGI to a whole new level, and has a story deep enough to be compared to the great hand-drawn classics of Disney past. It has humor appealing to kids and parents alike, and has drama that'll bring a tear to anyone's eye. Emotionally gripping, visually breathtaking, and socially conscious, Finding Nemo is a Top Ten Film of the 2000s.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
#10 Film of the 2000s: Slumdog Millionaire
To prepare for this write-up, I decided to watch Slumdog Millionaire for the eighth time. Yup, eighth time. I've kept track. I saw it three times in theatres, twice the day I bought it, twice more so I could introduce people to it, and again last night.
It simply doesn't get old! In fact, the main reason Slumdog Millionaire makes my Top 10 of the 2000s is because each of the Top 10 are boredom-proof. The rewatchability factor scores a perfect 10. I can't say that for numbers 11-20.
(I have to be in the "thinker/analyze-every-shot" mood to see No Country; I saw Gangs of NY last weekend and am getting more disappointed with each viewing; Children of Men is over-the-top intense, and you can't watch it with just anybody; Million Dollar Baby is flat-out depressing, and ranks in the "view once every five years" category with Requiem for a Dream, Pi, The Passion of the Christ, The Bicycle Thief, and Schindler's List; There Will be Blood runs a bit long and also requires the "thinker/analyze-every-shot" mood, along with the need to be ready to analyze Day Lewis' performance; Kill Bill Vol. 2 ages after several viewings, although Vol. 1's popcorn entertainment has high rewatchability; Chicago's a musical; I only need to be introduced to the LOTR characters once, and Fellowship lacks the epic qualities of Two Towers and Return of the King; The Dark Knight lost a lot of suspense after the first viewing, but remains awesome; and The Departed loses my attention after the first 17 minutes. If you want to see a re-cap of #20-11, check out http://sullyz-world.blogspot.com/2009/08/best-of-2000s-movies-part-1.html)
Remember the three criteria for this list: quality of film, lasting effect on the memory, and rewatchability.
1. Quality. This sort of goes without saying, but I don't like crappy movies. They're crappy. Each of the Top 10 Films challenges the reality we live in; each film presents ideas in ways other films haven't dared to touch on; each film uses history to either provide social commentary on the present or predict the future; and each film has a distinct aura that separates it from anything else you've ever seen. In a nutshell ... they're good.
2. Lasting effect on the memory. I'm not sure if I spelled "effect" right, but all of the Top 10 have "left a lasting impression" (effected or affected, whichever works) on me, both as a critic as well as a person. I have all of their movie stubs; I can remember exactly where I saw these movies; and, most importantly, I can remember exactly how I felt while watching these movies, and the emotions I took home with me after these movies were over. This is a foundational belief - a cornerstone - for my love of movies. Whenever someone asks me why I love movies, I will immediately tell them that movies have shaped my life. They're a means of escape from the world I currently live in; a reminder of a world I used to live in; and encouragement for me to create the world of my future. Combined with "quality," a lasting impression is what helps me filter out the "classics" from the herd of "well-made" movies.
3. Rewatchability. I have watched Independence Day 12,042 times. No, I haven't kept up with that. Only Rain Man can keep up with that. Is Independence Day the greatest film ever? That all depends. Ask the 11-year-old version of myself about the greatest film ever, and he'd tell you all about Independence Day. You would ask why; and he would say, "because it's freakin' awesome! And I can watch it over and over again!" Ask me now what the greatest film is, and I'll tell you all about Casablanca. Again you would ask why; and I would say, "because it's perfectly crafted, perfectly executed, it's freakin' awesome, and I can watch it over and over again." Citizen Kane is scientifically crafted, scientifically executed, and has an awesomeness that develops over several viewings; but its satisfaction comes strictly from a standpoint of logic, not emotion. (To use a horrible analogy: Citizen Kane makes logical sense just like drinking perfectly-filtered water makes logical sense. It's pure, so you can't deny it.) Unfortunately, Citizen Kane is definitely NOT something you put in the DVD player for kicks on a Friday night. Casablanca, on the other hand, satisfies the logical senses of "well-crafted filmmaking," as well as satisfies the emotions of "relating to characters on a personal level," "reacting to plot twists with physical and audible gestures," and "feeling real pissed at Ilsa for leaving Rick, but proud of Rick for having so much respect for a Laslow, that he would forfeit the love of his life because Laslow is the love of hers." (Men cry in this movie because of the respect for Rick, not the heartbreak Rick suffers. I don't see any guy crying when Rick's alone at the train station; but I know we have a tear coming every time we see Rick telling her to board the plane.)
Anyways ... emotional satisfaction.
When you can see a movie over-and-over again - a quality movie - and receive the same emotional satisfaction with each viewing, you have a film that ranks high on the "rewatchability" meter. Combine that with the "lasting effect" and "quality" factors, then you have a Top Ten Film of the 2000s ... like Slumdog Millionaire.
So back to what I was saying ... I saw this film again last night - for the 8th time - and I will see each Top Ten Film again between now and the time you see their write-up on this blog. Although I was sitting in my living room last night, I felt like I was transported to the Carolina Theatre in downtown Durham, NC, which is where I first saw Slumdog Millionaire in theatres. I remember the goosebumps on my arm when the words "D: It is written" popped up on the screen to start the movie; I remember the chest-thumping drums of "O Saya" that introduce us to the chaotic life of a slumdog in Bombay (later re-named Mumbai, but we'll get to that in a minute); and I remember how the dutch-angle cinematography had me turning my head like a puppy awaiting a biscuit from his owner.
Slumdog's story runs deep - there are several plot lines you can choose to analyze, depending on how you want to approach the film. This may be why I keep wanting to see it more; I can see it through several different critical eyes. For the sake of time and length, I'll just comment on 5:
1. It's a love story. That's the obvious. Jamal will stop at nothing to win the heart of his true love, even if he keeps loosing sight of her for years at a time. His unrelenting persistence finally unites them when they're eighteen years old; but only then does he realize that his journey is just beginning. His beauty must be rescued; and the dragons Jamal must conquer are older, wiser, more powerful, and much more dangerous than he. Does he cower? No way -- he faces them without a hint of fear. He can only fail if he gives up his pursuit; and because it's impossible for Jamal to give up, it's impossible for him to fail.
2. It's a Cain and Abel story. While Jamal has been an independent spirit since birth, his older brother Salim wants nothing more than to be accepted by someone. Without a father in his life, Salim has an avalanche of built-up anger that floods the lives of all who surround him. Because no one else shares in Salim's frustration, Salim vows to bring others down to his level. This is in part why he turns to crime so quickly; and this is also why his jealousy forces him to sabotage Jamal on multiple occasions. Is Salim a good kid at heart? Absolutely. He saves Jamal's life when they escape the child-labor camp, and consoles Jamal after Jamal first loses Laticka that very night. He even gives Laticka his keys and phone in a scene leading up to the film's climax. Salim truly cares about people, but his story becomes tragedy through his inability to escape his weakness of jealousy. He's the reason Jamal loses Laticka twice - it was Salim's choice. It was Salim who let go of her hand on the train leaving the labor camp; it was Salim who held a gun to his brother's head and forced him out of the hotel room; and it was Salim who forced Laticka into the back of a Mercedes outside the train station. It's not until his last breath does Salim account for his wrongdoings and achieve peace ... "God is great."
It's like the true story of two brothers: one was interviewed on death row; the other was interviewed at his mansion. When they asked what drove him to be a criminal, the brother on death row said, "my father was an alcoholic." When asked they asked the millionaire brother what drove him to become successful, he responded, "my father was an alcoholic." I think that story was shown on Montell or something, but you get the picture: some people respond to challenges differently than others. Jamal and Salim didn't have a father, and that may have been the reason one becomes a millionaire and the other serves a death sentence.
3. It's a story of India. In 1996, the city of Bombay became known as Mumbai. With this transition came a change in economy, government, and culture. Jamal and Salim leave the tin-shack slums of Bombay to ride trains and become entrepreneurs at the Taj Mahal - they come back to a city filled with hotels, highrises, and capitalism. When they left Bombay, a classroom had 1 book, 1 teacher, 15 desks, and 30 kids of various ages packed into a classroom that couldn't hold a washer and dryer. Jamal and Salim's mother did laundry along with 15 other women in a pond. A movie theatre consisted of 10 people watching a small projection screen set up against the wall of a living room. When they return to Mumbai, their old slum is now a highrise skyscraper under construction. Jamal works at a massive telecommunications office building that provides technical support to England. Cable TV is huge, and "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" is, well, just like it was in the U.S. when it first came out. This is a far cry from the Bombay of 10 years before. It's a story of evolution...
4. It's a story about wisdom. You can find this explanation in my article highlighting Slumdog as the Best Film of 2008, found here: http://sullyz-world.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-10-films-of-2008.html
5. It's a story of destiny. How is it that the questions of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" fall directly in line to the life story of Jamal Malick ... the night Jamal Malick is a contestant on the show? Speaking of that, how is it that Jamal Malick gets to be a contestant on a show broadcast to 50 million viewers? How is it that a backstabbing brother sacrifices his life for a couple he spent 10 years trying to destroy? How can you explain something like that, other than "God is great," "It's our destiny," and "It is written."
Stay tuned for #9, coming later this week...
To check out Part 1: Counting Down #20-11, check out http://sullyz-world.blogspot.com/2009/08/best-of-2000s-movies-part-1.html
It simply doesn't get old! In fact, the main reason Slumdog Millionaire makes my Top 10 of the 2000s is because each of the Top 10 are boredom-proof. The rewatchability factor scores a perfect 10. I can't say that for numbers 11-20.
(I have to be in the "thinker/analyze-every-shot" mood to see No Country; I saw Gangs of NY last weekend and am getting more disappointed with each viewing; Children of Men is over-the-top intense, and you can't watch it with just anybody; Million Dollar Baby is flat-out depressing, and ranks in the "view once every five years" category with Requiem for a Dream, Pi, The Passion of the Christ, The Bicycle Thief, and Schindler's List; There Will be Blood runs a bit long and also requires the "thinker/analyze-every-shot" mood, along with the need to be ready to analyze Day Lewis' performance; Kill Bill Vol. 2 ages after several viewings, although Vol. 1's popcorn entertainment has high rewatchability; Chicago's a musical; I only need to be introduced to the LOTR characters once, and Fellowship lacks the epic qualities of Two Towers and Return of the King; The Dark Knight lost a lot of suspense after the first viewing, but remains awesome; and The Departed loses my attention after the first 17 minutes. If you want to see a re-cap of #20-11, check out http://sullyz-world.blogspot.com/2009/08/best-of-2000s-movies-part-1.html)
Remember the three criteria for this list: quality of film, lasting effect on the memory, and rewatchability.
1. Quality. This sort of goes without saying, but I don't like crappy movies. They're crappy. Each of the Top 10 Films challenges the reality we live in; each film presents ideas in ways other films haven't dared to touch on; each film uses history to either provide social commentary on the present or predict the future; and each film has a distinct aura that separates it from anything else you've ever seen. In a nutshell ... they're good.
2. Lasting effect on the memory. I'm not sure if I spelled "effect" right, but all of the Top 10 have "left a lasting impression" (effected or affected, whichever works) on me, both as a critic as well as a person. I have all of their movie stubs; I can remember exactly where I saw these movies; and, most importantly, I can remember exactly how I felt while watching these movies, and the emotions I took home with me after these movies were over. This is a foundational belief - a cornerstone - for my love of movies. Whenever someone asks me why I love movies, I will immediately tell them that movies have shaped my life. They're a means of escape from the world I currently live in; a reminder of a world I used to live in; and encouragement for me to create the world of my future. Combined with "quality," a lasting impression is what helps me filter out the "classics" from the herd of "well-made" movies.
3. Rewatchability. I have watched Independence Day 12,042 times. No, I haven't kept up with that. Only Rain Man can keep up with that. Is Independence Day the greatest film ever? That all depends. Ask the 11-year-old version of myself about the greatest film ever, and he'd tell you all about Independence Day. You would ask why; and he would say, "because it's freakin' awesome! And I can watch it over and over again!" Ask me now what the greatest film is, and I'll tell you all about Casablanca. Again you would ask why; and I would say, "because it's perfectly crafted, perfectly executed, it's freakin' awesome, and I can watch it over and over again." Citizen Kane is scientifically crafted, scientifically executed, and has an awesomeness that develops over several viewings; but its satisfaction comes strictly from a standpoint of logic, not emotion. (To use a horrible analogy: Citizen Kane makes logical sense just like drinking perfectly-filtered water makes logical sense. It's pure, so you can't deny it.) Unfortunately, Citizen Kane is definitely NOT something you put in the DVD player for kicks on a Friday night. Casablanca, on the other hand, satisfies the logical senses of "well-crafted filmmaking," as well as satisfies the emotions of "relating to characters on a personal level," "reacting to plot twists with physical and audible gestures," and "feeling real pissed at Ilsa for leaving Rick, but proud of Rick for having so much respect for a Laslow, that he would forfeit the love of his life because Laslow is the love of hers." (Men cry in this movie because of the respect for Rick, not the heartbreak Rick suffers. I don't see any guy crying when Rick's alone at the train station; but I know we have a tear coming every time we see Rick telling her to board the plane.)
Anyways ... emotional satisfaction.
When you can see a movie over-and-over again - a quality movie - and receive the same emotional satisfaction with each viewing, you have a film that ranks high on the "rewatchability" meter. Combine that with the "lasting effect" and "quality" factors, then you have a Top Ten Film of the 2000s ... like Slumdog Millionaire.
So back to what I was saying ... I saw this film again last night - for the 8th time - and I will see each Top Ten Film again between now and the time you see their write-up on this blog. Although I was sitting in my living room last night, I felt like I was transported to the Carolina Theatre in downtown Durham, NC, which is where I first saw Slumdog Millionaire in theatres. I remember the goosebumps on my arm when the words "D: It is written" popped up on the screen to start the movie; I remember the chest-thumping drums of "O Saya" that introduce us to the chaotic life of a slumdog in Bombay (later re-named Mumbai, but we'll get to that in a minute); and I remember how the dutch-angle cinematography had me turning my head like a puppy awaiting a biscuit from his owner.
Slumdog's story runs deep - there are several plot lines you can choose to analyze, depending on how you want to approach the film. This may be why I keep wanting to see it more; I can see it through several different critical eyes. For the sake of time and length, I'll just comment on 5:
1. It's a love story. That's the obvious. Jamal will stop at nothing to win the heart of his true love, even if he keeps loosing sight of her for years at a time. His unrelenting persistence finally unites them when they're eighteen years old; but only then does he realize that his journey is just beginning. His beauty must be rescued; and the dragons Jamal must conquer are older, wiser, more powerful, and much more dangerous than he. Does he cower? No way -- he faces them without a hint of fear. He can only fail if he gives up his pursuit; and because it's impossible for Jamal to give up, it's impossible for him to fail.
2. It's a Cain and Abel story. While Jamal has been an independent spirit since birth, his older brother Salim wants nothing more than to be accepted by someone. Without a father in his life, Salim has an avalanche of built-up anger that floods the lives of all who surround him. Because no one else shares in Salim's frustration, Salim vows to bring others down to his level. This is in part why he turns to crime so quickly; and this is also why his jealousy forces him to sabotage Jamal on multiple occasions. Is Salim a good kid at heart? Absolutely. He saves Jamal's life when they escape the child-labor camp, and consoles Jamal after Jamal first loses Laticka that very night. He even gives Laticka his keys and phone in a scene leading up to the film's climax. Salim truly cares about people, but his story becomes tragedy through his inability to escape his weakness of jealousy. He's the reason Jamal loses Laticka twice - it was Salim's choice. It was Salim who let go of her hand on the train leaving the labor camp; it was Salim who held a gun to his brother's head and forced him out of the hotel room; and it was Salim who forced Laticka into the back of a Mercedes outside the train station. It's not until his last breath does Salim account for his wrongdoings and achieve peace ... "God is great."
It's like the true story of two brothers: one was interviewed on death row; the other was interviewed at his mansion. When they asked what drove him to be a criminal, the brother on death row said, "my father was an alcoholic." When asked they asked the millionaire brother what drove him to become successful, he responded, "my father was an alcoholic." I think that story was shown on Montell or something, but you get the picture: some people respond to challenges differently than others. Jamal and Salim didn't have a father, and that may have been the reason one becomes a millionaire and the other serves a death sentence.
3. It's a story of India. In 1996, the city of Bombay became known as Mumbai. With this transition came a change in economy, government, and culture. Jamal and Salim leave the tin-shack slums of Bombay to ride trains and become entrepreneurs at the Taj Mahal - they come back to a city filled with hotels, highrises, and capitalism. When they left Bombay, a classroom had 1 book, 1 teacher, 15 desks, and 30 kids of various ages packed into a classroom that couldn't hold a washer and dryer. Jamal and Salim's mother did laundry along with 15 other women in a pond. A movie theatre consisted of 10 people watching a small projection screen set up against the wall of a living room. When they return to Mumbai, their old slum is now a highrise skyscraper under construction. Jamal works at a massive telecommunications office building that provides technical support to England. Cable TV is huge, and "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" is, well, just like it was in the U.S. when it first came out. This is a far cry from the Bombay of 10 years before. It's a story of evolution...
4. It's a story about wisdom. You can find this explanation in my article highlighting Slumdog as the Best Film of 2008, found here: http://sullyz-world.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-10-films-of-2008.html
5. It's a story of destiny. How is it that the questions of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" fall directly in line to the life story of Jamal Malick ... the night Jamal Malick is a contestant on the show? Speaking of that, how is it that Jamal Malick gets to be a contestant on a show broadcast to 50 million viewers? How is it that a backstabbing brother sacrifices his life for a couple he spent 10 years trying to destroy? How can you explain something like that, other than "God is great," "It's our destiny," and "It is written."
Stay tuned for #9, coming later this week...
To check out Part 1: Counting Down #20-11, check out http://sullyz-world.blogspot.com/2009/08/best-of-2000s-movies-part-1.html
Saturday, August 8, 2009
G.I. Joe Plot Outline
8:47 - Lights dim, previews ended. It's all downhill from here. Is that a baby crying? It is! A baby is crying in the movie theatre! Which gets me wondering, what's the better story line:
1. A baby already crying in anticipation of a horrible movie, or
2. Someone sneaking a freakin' baby into a movie theatre! ... to see G.I. Joe!
(Out of the 15 or so previews, Shutter Island looks promising. Leonardo stars as a U.S. marshall who gets trapped on an island-based insane asylum in this Scorsese thriller. I'm starting to get anxious for the fall movie line-up - in most part because we all know G.I. Joe is about to suck.)
10:48 - Credits roll, time to go home. Officially convinced a machine is wearing a Dennis Quaid costume.
1. A baby already crying in anticipation of a horrible movie, or
2. Someone sneaking a freakin' baby into a movie theatre! ... to see G.I. Joe!
(Out of the 15 or so previews, Shutter Island looks promising. Leonardo stars as a U.S. marshall who gets trapped on an island-based insane asylum in this Scorsese thriller. I'm starting to get anxious for the fall movie line-up - in most part because we all know G.I. Joe is about to suck.)
10:48 - Credits roll, time to go home. Officially convinced a machine is wearing a Dennis Quaid costume.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Best of the 2000s: Movies (Part 1)
One of my favorite sports writers , or at least the only one I quote all the time, is Bill Simmons. Known as The Sports Guy, Simmons headlines a series of podcasts for ESPN.com, which also posts a link to his blog on their front page. I'm addicted to this guy's writing - his dry sense of humor, constant great-film analogies, and abundant tangents always leave me anxious for the next 10,000+ word article.
During a recent piece re-capping the NBA offseason, Simmons applied 50 quotes from one of the best movies of this decade, Almost Famous, to cover the NBA's summer. On a tangent, he's polling his audience on the best movie of the past decade. His argument for the best movie is Almost Famous - especially the "Untitled" bootleg version found in the special edition DVD. While I disagree, I totally respect the pick. If you read his article, his rational justifies it to land somewhere in your top 20. (Don't worry, I'll post a link at the bottom)
Intrigued by his idea, I'm following his footsteps. If you don't know me yet, you'll soon discover that most of my entries are lists representing the Top 10 of whatever I can think of. If you've seen the film or read the book High Fidelity, you'll quickly compare me to the main character, Rob Gordon. Just picture your basic good-guy who never lives up to his potential, lives in a big city, owns a beat-down record store, and hangs out with the same 2 people because he's too lazy to meet new friends. That's my plan-B if I ever fail to live up to my potential ... except instead of a record store, I'll have a Blockbuster, DVD Warehouse, or something involving movies.
Being 24 years old, the 2000s have been my friends' coming-of-age decade. We can now drive; we've voted (most of us, twice); and we've graduated from high school and college; and most of us have started the career path or actively pursue graduate degrees.
For two of my friends, we've filled in the gaps of these major events by talking about the same thing for the last 10 years.
For Sam Gooley, it's movies. In March, 1999, we were so pissed that Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture of 1998 at the Oscars, we decided to start our own awards ceremony ... even if nobody else cared or even knew about it. Every year since, on Oscar Night, we have the Sullivan-Gooley Awards to honor the TRUE best pictures, best performances, and technical achievements of the previous year. It's been 10 years of SG Awards (Sports Guy, I hope you're reading this), and we've only just begun. Sam's in NYC - I'm in Raleigh, NC; but we catch up on movies every week and meet up every year for the annual SG Awards.
For Chris Miller, it's college football. While we haven't started our own version of College Gameday yet (we like the original too much), we start making our personal Top-25's every week starting about now, and already can't wait to see which SEC powerhouse will pounce on a Big Ten joke in January. Every August we cristen the season with a long chat about Florida (my team since birth), Georgia (his alma mater), and how awful the Big Ten is at everything. He's in Charleston, SC - I'm still in Raleigh; but our conversation picks up without a beat every August.
Throughout August, I've written a series of articles dedicated to Sam, Chris, and the 2000s. Up first comes the Top 20 Films from 2000 - 2009, thanks to a thought sparked while reading an article on the NBA offseason by Bill Simmons. We'll begin with 20-11, and will feature a separate article for each of the Top 10. Following the films, we'll count down NCAA football traditions in the BCS era. So if you don't like me rambling about movies, just wait a couple weeks and we'll chat football.
Criteria for the Top 20:
1. Quality of film
2. Lasting effect on the memory - remembering not just seeing the movie, but the feelings you felt while watching it. We've all seen movies that were great, yet we forgot them the next day. Those movies will not make this cut.
3. Rewatchability - whether you can discover new things with each viewing, sheer entertainment value, or putting it on when you're in the mood to watch something great.
#20: No Country For Old Men (2007)
If you're anything like me, your first thought after watching No Country for Old Men was, "WTF?" I know I liked it - it was technically flawless, captured the tension perfectly with pin-point editing and cinematography, and had a character who would give Hannibal Lectar nightmares - but I still had no idea what just happened over the course of two hours.
So I saw it again; still I thought "WTF'" but I had much more respect. I now knew that Ed Tom Bell (classic redneck name, by the way) was the main character, although he didn't appear until a half hour into the movie. I also knew that it was a character study - not by the characters, but on the idea of evil. Having already known what to expect in terms of suspense in plot, I could study the endless symbolisms recurring throughout the film ...so many symbolisms...
...that I saw it again. And loved it. I've never had to see a film three times to finally discover that I loved it. It's not your fairy-tale, happy-go-lucky movie. It's evil. It's a warning of what can happen if you don't adapt to a change in times. Do you remember that killer in your nightmares that seems to be moving at the same pace; yet you can never escape him, no matter how fast you run? That's what No Country For Old Men is about ... that ever-present pace of "what's coming if you don't move on."
Moving on...
#19. Gangs of New York (2002)
This film makes the list for 3 scenes:
1.) The first 10 minutes. Everything from the score (the high-pitch flute, followed by Peter Gabriel's "Signal to Noise"), art direction, flowing cinematography, and classic showdown between Priest Vallon and Bill the Butcher.
2.) When the Irish arrive, there's one shot that shows the men receiving their Union uniforms, boarding new boats, and being brought home in "wooden suits" that line the harbor. This scene is haunting, especially with Scorsese using an Irish lullaby as the score.
3.) Bill the Butcher's monologue - sitting bedside to Amsterdam, draped in the American flag - about Fear.
#18. Children of Men (2006)
Imagine what it was like when Jesus was born. Baby boys were being slaughtered across the largest empire in the world, and ordered to do so by their king. The world was in turmoil - consumed in evil; and Mary and Joseph had to risk their lives in a daring escape to have their child.
Such is the backdrop of Children of Men - a modern-day Christmas story told through the eyes of visionary director Alfonso Cuaron. It's violent, graphic, and so realistic that non-believers may miss the moral of the story: through our darkest hour comes the our brightest hope for the future. Although most of the film focuses on our darkest hour, it's in the last 10 minutes - when a crying baby brings soldiers to their knees - do tears of joy flood they eyes of all who see it.
#17. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
What quickly turns from "one of the greatest sports films ever" to "let's make a statement on euthanasia," Million Dollar Baby's controversial twist is saved by the storytelling of director, writer, actor, and composer (yup, he even wrote the music, too) Clint Eastwood. For the first 90 minutes, Eastwood had me fooled: I thought it was a movie about boxing. Instead, it's a movie about pulling the plug - pulling the plug on a life of regret; pulling the plug on a life filled with loss; pulling the plug on the inability to forgive yourself for the mistakes you've made throughout your lifetime. Million Dollar Baby is about letting go, even when it goes against everything you stand for.
#16. There Will be Blood (2007)
Nearly 18 minutes into the film, we are greeted by our protagonist, Daniel Plainview. "Ladies and gentleman," he begins. Thus, we are introduced to one of the most ambitious characters portrayed on screen. Much like No Country for Old Men was a study on the idea of evil, There Will Be Blood is a study on the idea of power, and the sacrifices two men make in order to acquire it.
The first is Mr. Plainview, portrayed by Daniel Day Lewis in one of the most haunting performances in cinematic history. Plainview doesn't hesitate to adopt a fatherless boy for the sole purpose of convincing prospects he's a family man; pretend to get "saved" at a Christian worship service so he could drill a pipeline through a church-member's property; or kill a man who pretends to be a long-lost brother.
The other is Eli Sunday, a young pastor who runs the town Mr. Plainview wishes to take over. Sunday - while gentle and pious on the surface - unravels throughout the course of the film, compromising his own faith in exchange for monetary reward and control of his parishioners.
At the end of the film there will, in fact, be blood; and while the image at first may disturb and bother many, the viewers will feel regret neither for the killer nor the victim.
#15. Kill Bill (Vol. I & II) (2003-2004)
Volume One makes the statement while Volume Two fills in all the cracks. While each could stand on its own, Vol. I & II work together like Metcalf's Law to prove Kill Bill is more than the sum of its parts. It's a classic tale of revenge, style and homage to classic martial arts as only Quentin Tarantino can tell it.
#14. Chicago (2002)
I hate musicals. No matter how good I feel, I will never spontaneously break out into song and dance. I'm a logical person, and I know people just don't do that. You'll never see me singing in the rain; you'll never see me tell a story about the West Side that involves choreographed fighting; and you will NEVER see me skid-a-ma-ring-kee-dink anything.
But Chicago is different. The only musical number that takes place in real time - and not in the mind of the characters - is the opening sequence of "All That Jazz." Most of the others are interpreted through the eyes and imagination of Roxy Hart, the wannabe performer who makes her name by killing the man she's sleeping with. "Cell Block Tango," "They Both Reached for the Gun," and "Tap Dance" are Roxy's disillusioned interpretations of the situations she finds herself in. Director Gary Marshall drawns a clear line between Roxy's rendtions and the reality she inhabits; this separation gives audience members who aren't big fans of musicals (myself included) the opportunity to actually enjoy a musical.
During a recent piece re-capping the NBA offseason, Simmons applied 50 quotes from one of the best movies of this decade, Almost Famous, to cover the NBA's summer. On a tangent, he's polling his audience on the best movie of the past decade. His argument for the best movie is Almost Famous - especially the "Untitled" bootleg version found in the special edition DVD. While I disagree, I totally respect the pick. If you read his article, his rational justifies it to land somewhere in your top 20. (Don't worry, I'll post a link at the bottom)
Intrigued by his idea, I'm following his footsteps. If you don't know me yet, you'll soon discover that most of my entries are lists representing the Top 10 of whatever I can think of. If you've seen the film or read the book High Fidelity, you'll quickly compare me to the main character, Rob Gordon. Just picture your basic good-guy who never lives up to his potential, lives in a big city, owns a beat-down record store, and hangs out with the same 2 people because he's too lazy to meet new friends. That's my plan-B if I ever fail to live up to my potential ... except instead of a record store, I'll have a Blockbuster, DVD Warehouse, or something involving movies.
Being 24 years old, the 2000s have been my friends' coming-of-age decade. We can now drive; we've voted (most of us, twice); and we've graduated from high school and college; and most of us have started the career path or actively pursue graduate degrees.
For two of my friends, we've filled in the gaps of these major events by talking about the same thing for the last 10 years.
For Sam Gooley, it's movies. In March, 1999, we were so pissed that Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture of 1998 at the Oscars, we decided to start our own awards ceremony ... even if nobody else cared or even knew about it. Every year since, on Oscar Night, we have the Sullivan-Gooley Awards to honor the TRUE best pictures, best performances, and technical achievements of the previous year. It's been 10 years of SG Awards (Sports Guy, I hope you're reading this), and we've only just begun. Sam's in NYC - I'm in Raleigh, NC; but we catch up on movies every week and meet up every year for the annual SG Awards.
For Chris Miller, it's college football. While we haven't started our own version of College Gameday yet (we like the original too much), we start making our personal Top-25's every week starting about now, and already can't wait to see which SEC powerhouse will pounce on a Big Ten joke in January. Every August we cristen the season with a long chat about Florida (my team since birth), Georgia (his alma mater), and how awful the Big Ten is at everything. He's in Charleston, SC - I'm still in Raleigh; but our conversation picks up without a beat every August.
Throughout August, I've written a series of articles dedicated to Sam, Chris, and the 2000s. Up first comes the Top 20 Films from 2000 - 2009, thanks to a thought sparked while reading an article on the NBA offseason by Bill Simmons. We'll begin with 20-11, and will feature a separate article for each of the Top 10. Following the films, we'll count down NCAA football traditions in the BCS era. So if you don't like me rambling about movies, just wait a couple weeks and we'll chat football.
Criteria for the Top 20:
1. Quality of film
2. Lasting effect on the memory - remembering not just seeing the movie, but the feelings you felt while watching it. We've all seen movies that were great, yet we forgot them the next day. Those movies will not make this cut.
3. Rewatchability - whether you can discover new things with each viewing, sheer entertainment value, or putting it on when you're in the mood to watch something great.
#20: No Country For Old Men (2007)
If you're anything like me, your first thought after watching No Country for Old Men was, "WTF?" I know I liked it - it was technically flawless, captured the tension perfectly with pin-point editing and cinematography, and had a character who would give Hannibal Lectar nightmares - but I still had no idea what just happened over the course of two hours.
So I saw it again; still I thought "WTF'" but I had much more respect. I now knew that Ed Tom Bell (classic redneck name, by the way) was the main character, although he didn't appear until a half hour into the movie. I also knew that it was a character study - not by the characters, but on the idea of evil. Having already known what to expect in terms of suspense in plot, I could study the endless symbolisms recurring throughout the film ...so many symbolisms...
...that I saw it again. And loved it. I've never had to see a film three times to finally discover that I loved it. It's not your fairy-tale, happy-go-lucky movie. It's evil. It's a warning of what can happen if you don't adapt to a change in times. Do you remember that killer in your nightmares that seems to be moving at the same pace; yet you can never escape him, no matter how fast you run? That's what No Country For Old Men is about ... that ever-present pace of "what's coming if you don't move on."
Moving on...
#19. Gangs of New York (2002)
This film makes the list for 3 scenes:
1.) The first 10 minutes. Everything from the score (the high-pitch flute, followed by Peter Gabriel's "Signal to Noise"), art direction, flowing cinematography, and classic showdown between Priest Vallon and Bill the Butcher.
2.) When the Irish arrive, there's one shot that shows the men receiving their Union uniforms, boarding new boats, and being brought home in "wooden suits" that line the harbor. This scene is haunting, especially with Scorsese using an Irish lullaby as the score.
3.) Bill the Butcher's monologue - sitting bedside to Amsterdam, draped in the American flag - about Fear.
#18. Children of Men (2006)
Imagine what it was like when Jesus was born. Baby boys were being slaughtered across the largest empire in the world, and ordered to do so by their king. The world was in turmoil - consumed in evil; and Mary and Joseph had to risk their lives in a daring escape to have their child.
Such is the backdrop of Children of Men - a modern-day Christmas story told through the eyes of visionary director Alfonso Cuaron. It's violent, graphic, and so realistic that non-believers may miss the moral of the story: through our darkest hour comes the our brightest hope for the future. Although most of the film focuses on our darkest hour, it's in the last 10 minutes - when a crying baby brings soldiers to their knees - do tears of joy flood they eyes of all who see it.
#17. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
What quickly turns from "one of the greatest sports films ever" to "let's make a statement on euthanasia," Million Dollar Baby's controversial twist is saved by the storytelling of director, writer, actor, and composer (yup, he even wrote the music, too) Clint Eastwood. For the first 90 minutes, Eastwood had me fooled: I thought it was a movie about boxing. Instead, it's a movie about pulling the plug - pulling the plug on a life of regret; pulling the plug on a life filled with loss; pulling the plug on the inability to forgive yourself for the mistakes you've made throughout your lifetime. Million Dollar Baby is about letting go, even when it goes against everything you stand for.
#16. There Will be Blood (2007)
Nearly 18 minutes into the film, we are greeted by our protagonist, Daniel Plainview. "Ladies and gentleman," he begins. Thus, we are introduced to one of the most ambitious characters portrayed on screen. Much like No Country for Old Men was a study on the idea of evil, There Will Be Blood is a study on the idea of power, and the sacrifices two men make in order to acquire it.
The first is Mr. Plainview, portrayed by Daniel Day Lewis in one of the most haunting performances in cinematic history. Plainview doesn't hesitate to adopt a fatherless boy for the sole purpose of convincing prospects he's a family man; pretend to get "saved" at a Christian worship service so he could drill a pipeline through a church-member's property; or kill a man who pretends to be a long-lost brother.
The other is Eli Sunday, a young pastor who runs the town Mr. Plainview wishes to take over. Sunday - while gentle and pious on the surface - unravels throughout the course of the film, compromising his own faith in exchange for monetary reward and control of his parishioners.
At the end of the film there will, in fact, be blood; and while the image at first may disturb and bother many, the viewers will feel regret neither for the killer nor the victim.
#15. Kill Bill (Vol. I & II) (2003-2004)
Volume One makes the statement while Volume Two fills in all the cracks. While each could stand on its own, Vol. I & II work together like Metcalf's Law to prove Kill Bill is more than the sum of its parts. It's a classic tale of revenge, style and homage to classic martial arts as only Quentin Tarantino can tell it.
#14. Chicago (2002)
I hate musicals. No matter how good I feel, I will never spontaneously break out into song and dance. I'm a logical person, and I know people just don't do that. You'll never see me singing in the rain; you'll never see me tell a story about the West Side that involves choreographed fighting; and you will NEVER see me skid-a-ma-ring-kee-dink anything.
But Chicago is different. The only musical number that takes place in real time - and not in the mind of the characters - is the opening sequence of "All That Jazz." Most of the others are interpreted through the eyes and imagination of Roxy Hart, the wannabe performer who makes her name by killing the man she's sleeping with. "Cell Block Tango," "They Both Reached for the Gun," and "Tap Dance" are Roxy's disillusioned interpretations of the situations she finds herself in. Director Gary Marshall drawns a clear line between Roxy's rendtions and the reality she inhabits; this separation gives audience members who aren't big fans of musicals (myself included) the opportunity to actually enjoy a musical.
Chicago is not like any other musical in that it's realistic. Are some of its plot lines a bit over the top? Absolutely, but so is Chicago. Pay close attention to John C. Reilly (Amos Hart, aka Mr. Cellophane) as he steals almost every scene he's in. Reilly was in 4 movies in 2002, and 3 were nominated for Best Picture (Chicago, The Hours, and Gangs of New York. The other was The Good Girl, an fantastic dark comedy starring Jennifer Anniston and Jake Gyllenhaal), making him one of the most underrated actors of the decade.
#13. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Arguably the most complete film of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring introduces the world to Frodo, Sam, and the clan who depart to save Middle Earth and destroy the "one ring to rule them all." Through not as epic in scope as The Two Towers or The Return of the King, The Fellowship of the Ring spends most its time allowing us to meet the characters. Since so many play an intricate role in Frodo's journey, we must be able to relate to them when their time comes to contribute.
With so much riding on the future of the franchise (at the time of its release, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was the most expensive project ever, at $300 million), The Fellowship of the Ring not only catapulted the trilogy into the limelight, but set the tone for the greatest journey in film history.#12. The Dark Knight (2008)
"Heath Ledger is going to play the Joker? The same guy who played Casanova - who starred in the biggest gay romance ever; THIS is the guy they chose to take over the villain played so perfectly by Jack Nicholson? Dang, this movie is going to suck."
Those were my words. Those were a lot of people's words when they found out who signed on to play the Joker. The good news: director Christopher Nolan knows precisely what to include in each of his works. And just take a look at his brief, but strong resume: Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight.
This man knows how to create a dark character, and his work couldn't have been better exemplified than Heath Ledger's rendition of the Joker. Not only did Ledger pick up an Oscar and Sullivan-Gooley Award, his performance will go down as one of the most memorable, and one of the most haunting. Nolan also proved himself capable of handling an ensemble production and larger scale than Batman Begins. Several compared The Dark Knight to another sequel that took the original to another level: The Godfather, Part II. While it may not receive the accolades of The Godfather, The Dark Knight will surely be placed next to the Corleone family as an unforgettable masterpiece.
#11. The Departed (2006)
We're 17 minutes into The Departed when the Dropkick Murphy's come crashing in with "I'm Shipping Off to Boston." Such is the Boston Police Department: not as much a police force you're willing to serve for; rather, a police force you're shipped off to ... like going to after-school detention.
17 minutes in, and I feel like I've seen an entire film. The first sequence is an addrenaline rush brought about in swift strokes by Martin Scorsese. We're quickly brought up to speed with all of our characters:
Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) is recruited as a boy to work for crime lord Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). Colin graduates the police academy along with Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), and gets promoted through the ranks so fast that he's already a private detective before Costigan leaves his post-graduation interview with Chief Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Detective Dignam (Mark Wahlberg). Instead of becoming a true-blue cop, Costigan (DiCaprio) gets sent undercover in order to infiltrate Costello's (Nicholson's) regime.
Such begins the best cat-and-mouse game I've ever seen. Damon's a criminal posing as a cop; DiCaptrio's a cop posing as a criminal. Damon's assignment is to catch the rat in the police force (himself); and DiCapio's assigned to look out for the cop in Nicholson's crew (himself). Both realize the stress involved in playing both sides, and soon discover that nobody's on your side if you're on nobody's side.
There isn't a weak performance in the film (except Vera Cormiga, whose role could have been played by anyone), with stellar supporting turns led by Alec Baldwin, Mark Wahlberg, and Ray Winstone (Mr. French). While the fate of most of these characters lies within the film's title, it's how they meet their fate that makes The Departed the #11 film of the 2000s.
Stay tuned for #10, posting real soon.
For more information on Bill Simmons, check out his blog at http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/simmons/index
For more information on Sam Gooley, check out his blog at http://gooleysmovies.blogspot.com/
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Funny People - Apatow's Free Pass
"Fielder's choice" is a common baseball term in which the defense says, "instead of throwing out the batter who hit this weak ground ball, we're going to throw out the guy running home instead. We don't care if the batter reaches first base; we just don't want that other guy to make it home."
For statistics purposes, the batter gets credited with neither a hit nor an out. Because his plate appearance counts as an at-bat, his batting average drops although he successfully reached first base.
Now before you start wondering why on earth Mike is talking about baseball during a review of a comedy that has nothing to do with baseball, I want to beat the following analogy into the ground:
Judd Apatow -- director of the nothing-is-wrong-with-it-except-the-feeling-I-had-when-I-woke-up-and-left-the-theatre (NIWWIETFIHWIWUALTT) film, Funny People -- will serve as the batter who successfully reaches first base.
Mike Sullivan -- the un-noticed and way-too-obsessed-with-hyphens movie critic -- will serve as the defensive player who fields the ground ball and throws out the runner at home.
Adam Sandler -- star of the NIWWIETFIHWIWUALTT film by Judd Apatow -- will serve as the base-runner who had to settle with a triple after hitting a bomb off the top of the center field wall. He almost hit a home run, but will unfortunately be thrown out due to the selfishness of the batter who tried to swing for the fences instead of trying to advance the runner on third.
Everyone confused? Perfect. Let's start the movie review.
So far, Judd Apatow is batting 2-for-2 with 2 home runs.
His first appearance, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, was a comic gem that surprised everyone who thought it was going to be a shallow, gross-out comedy with no point other than a few cheap laughs for a $10 ticket. Instead it warmed our hearts, allowed the performances to steal the show, and introduced the world to a different type of humor.
His second time in the director's chair, Knocked Up, made a star of Seth Rogan; proved Katherine Heigl could carry something other than a supporting role in a TV show or movie starring Johnny Knoxville (that's right ... The Ringer); and let us all know Judd Apatow is just beginning.
Now it's his third time to the plate and his confidence is soaring. He's returned Rogan, Leslie Mann, and Jonah Hill, and picked up a who's-who of classic comedians for cameo appearances.
On top of that, he has signed box-office giant Adam Sandler to star in an epic tale of a dying comedian trying to salvage a life of loneliness due to greed, selfishness, and ego. Instead of saying, "I think it would be fun to run a newspaper," imagine Charles Foster Kane saying, "I think it would be fun to do stand up;" then you would have the foundation of Sandler's character, George Simmons. (And if you don't know who Charles Foster Kane is ... well ... I don't know you.)
With total control of the film - from writing, directing, and having final cut: meaning he's got the last say in what's released to theatres - Apatow aims to make "Funny People" an epic piece on the life of stand-up comedy.
Unfortunately ... this film doesn't have the feel of an epic. It's still a comedy; and comedies aren't supposed to be 2 hours, 30 minutes long. To quote good buddy of mine and fellow movie geek Sam Gooley (his review can be found at http://gooleysmovies.blogspot.com/2009/08/funny-people-review.html), "Funny People" flatlines in the last hour because Apatow attempts to cram too many personal ideas into a 2-hour film. Because "Funny People" is his baby; and he's trying to put on the screen a topic so personal to him, Apatow couldn't part with many of the scenes that should have been kept for the "extended director's cut" feature of the DVD.
Is this movie bad? Absolutely not! In fact, I don't think there's a weak performance or scene in the movie. I just think there are too many scenes to do the movie any good.
The first hour is amazing; Sandler and Rogan team up for a mentor/up-and-comer bro-mance that touches on dark humor, gross-out comedy, uncomfortable Ben-Stiller-in-Meet-The-Parents humor, stand-up storytelling ... I pretty much laughed in every way possible during the first hour.
Then comes the plot-twist that everyone saw in the preview, so I won't spoil it when I say that George Simmons (Sandler's character) is getting better. As Sam Gooley would say, "We've already started the sequel an hour through the first movie! Why don't we just finish the first movie first?"
Right when George gets back from the doctor's office: this is the point where you can get popcorn, visit the bathroom, make a phone call, take a nap, or just space out for 20 minutes. Just make sure to wake up when you see Eric Bana talking about Cameron Diaz or Aussie-rules futbol. Then go back to sleep for another 10-15 minutes. Tell the people you came with, "come get me/wake me up/ snap your fingers whenever they get back to the Sandler/Rogan bro-mance."
Now that I think about it, there's an entire 45 minute subplot that could have been summarized in one scene between George and his ex-girlfriend on his outside balcony. But I digress...
Let's conclude with the random baseball analogy that began this already-too-long review.
Why is Sandler the runner that gets thrown out at home?
Answer: his performance is just short of perfection. This is a semi-autobiographical take on his life, and he digs deep to deliver his whole bag of tricks. He shows us every aspect of his humor that has made us fall in love with him over the last 20 years (that's right, he starred in "Going Overboard" in 1989 and started SNL in 1990), and a charisma that'll last for many films to come. All the humor that made Sandler famous is now dated; and Sandler doesn't hesitate to make fun of his own work. He's also aware that the torch will be passed to a new era of comedy, which is embodied by Rogan, and under the leadership of Apatow himself. Sandler's performance is a lock for a Best Actor (Comedy) Golden Globe Nomination, and will go down as his most personal work to date ... not because of his humor, rather because of his new-found maturity. Unfortunately, he won't get an Oscar nomination, but will get thrown out at home...
Why is Apatow the batter who makes it to first?
... Apatow swings for the fences, and fails to connect. Remember in "The Aviator" when Howard Hughes took forever to complete "Hells Angels," and the film turned out to be a disappointment because of his over-obsession with making everything perfect? Remember when Hughes' editors said they had 270 hours of footage that needed to be cut down to 127 minutes? This is how I approach Apatow's direction of "Funny People." Although the first hour is complete, the film's main weakness comes from over-applied ambition that fails to deliver. In essence, Apatow swings for the fences, breaks his bat, and casts a dribbler down the third base line to the fielder...
Why am I the fielder?
... who lets him go to first. Apatow's film is a success, but it isn't. It's a failure, but it isn't. It's not a hit; but it's not an out. It'll hurt Apatow's average, but it won't hurt his previous home runs. I'm just the fielder ... and the ball was hit to me ... and how I view this film is my choice.
For statistics purposes, the batter gets credited with neither a hit nor an out. Because his plate appearance counts as an at-bat, his batting average drops although he successfully reached first base.
Now before you start wondering why on earth Mike is talking about baseball during a review of a comedy that has nothing to do with baseball, I want to beat the following analogy into the ground:
Judd Apatow -- director of the nothing-is-wrong-with-it-except-the-feeling-I-had-when-I-woke-up-and-left-the-theatre (NIWWIETFIHWIWUALTT) film, Funny People -- will serve as the batter who successfully reaches first base.
Mike Sullivan -- the un-noticed and way-too-obsessed-with-hyphens movie critic -- will serve as the defensive player who fields the ground ball and throws out the runner at home.
Adam Sandler -- star of the NIWWIETFIHWIWUALTT film by Judd Apatow -- will serve as the base-runner who had to settle with a triple after hitting a bomb off the top of the center field wall. He almost hit a home run, but will unfortunately be thrown out due to the selfishness of the batter who tried to swing for the fences instead of trying to advance the runner on third.
Everyone confused? Perfect. Let's start the movie review.
So far, Judd Apatow is batting 2-for-2 with 2 home runs.
His first appearance, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, was a comic gem that surprised everyone who thought it was going to be a shallow, gross-out comedy with no point other than a few cheap laughs for a $10 ticket. Instead it warmed our hearts, allowed the performances to steal the show, and introduced the world to a different type of humor.
His second time in the director's chair, Knocked Up, made a star of Seth Rogan; proved Katherine Heigl could carry something other than a supporting role in a TV show or movie starring Johnny Knoxville (that's right ... The Ringer); and let us all know Judd Apatow is just beginning.
Now it's his third time to the plate and his confidence is soaring. He's returned Rogan, Leslie Mann, and Jonah Hill, and picked up a who's-who of classic comedians for cameo appearances.
On top of that, he has signed box-office giant Adam Sandler to star in an epic tale of a dying comedian trying to salvage a life of loneliness due to greed, selfishness, and ego. Instead of saying, "I think it would be fun to run a newspaper," imagine Charles Foster Kane saying, "I think it would be fun to do stand up;" then you would have the foundation of Sandler's character, George Simmons. (And if you don't know who Charles Foster Kane is ... well ... I don't know you.)
With total control of the film - from writing, directing, and having final cut: meaning he's got the last say in what's released to theatres - Apatow aims to make "Funny People" an epic piece on the life of stand-up comedy.
Unfortunately ... this film doesn't have the feel of an epic. It's still a comedy; and comedies aren't supposed to be 2 hours, 30 minutes long. To quote good buddy of mine and fellow movie geek Sam Gooley (his review can be found at http://gooleysmovies.blogspot.com/2009/08/funny-people-review.html), "Funny People" flatlines in the last hour because Apatow attempts to cram too many personal ideas into a 2-hour film. Because "Funny People" is his baby; and he's trying to put on the screen a topic so personal to him, Apatow couldn't part with many of the scenes that should have been kept for the "extended director's cut" feature of the DVD.
Is this movie bad? Absolutely not! In fact, I don't think there's a weak performance or scene in the movie. I just think there are too many scenes to do the movie any good.
The first hour is amazing; Sandler and Rogan team up for a mentor/up-and-comer bro-mance that touches on dark humor, gross-out comedy, uncomfortable Ben-Stiller-in-Meet-The-Parents humor, stand-up storytelling ... I pretty much laughed in every way possible during the first hour.
Then comes the plot-twist that everyone saw in the preview, so I won't spoil it when I say that George Simmons (Sandler's character) is getting better. As Sam Gooley would say, "We've already started the sequel an hour through the first movie! Why don't we just finish the first movie first?"
Right when George gets back from the doctor's office: this is the point where you can get popcorn, visit the bathroom, make a phone call, take a nap, or just space out for 20 minutes. Just make sure to wake up when you see Eric Bana talking about Cameron Diaz or Aussie-rules futbol. Then go back to sleep for another 10-15 minutes. Tell the people you came with, "come get me/wake me up/ snap your fingers whenever they get back to the Sandler/Rogan bro-mance."
Now that I think about it, there's an entire 45 minute subplot that could have been summarized in one scene between George and his ex-girlfriend on his outside balcony. But I digress...
Let's conclude with the random baseball analogy that began this already-too-long review.
Why is Sandler the runner that gets thrown out at home?
Answer: his performance is just short of perfection. This is a semi-autobiographical take on his life, and he digs deep to deliver his whole bag of tricks. He shows us every aspect of his humor that has made us fall in love with him over the last 20 years (that's right, he starred in "Going Overboard" in 1989 and started SNL in 1990), and a charisma that'll last for many films to come. All the humor that made Sandler famous is now dated; and Sandler doesn't hesitate to make fun of his own work. He's also aware that the torch will be passed to a new era of comedy, which is embodied by Rogan, and under the leadership of Apatow himself. Sandler's performance is a lock for a Best Actor (Comedy) Golden Globe Nomination, and will go down as his most personal work to date ... not because of his humor, rather because of his new-found maturity. Unfortunately, he won't get an Oscar nomination, but will get thrown out at home...
Why is Apatow the batter who makes it to first?
... Apatow swings for the fences, and fails to connect. Remember in "The Aviator" when Howard Hughes took forever to complete "Hells Angels," and the film turned out to be a disappointment because of his over-obsession with making everything perfect? Remember when Hughes' editors said they had 270 hours of footage that needed to be cut down to 127 minutes? This is how I approach Apatow's direction of "Funny People." Although the first hour is complete, the film's main weakness comes from over-applied ambition that fails to deliver. In essence, Apatow swings for the fences, breaks his bat, and casts a dribbler down the third base line to the fielder...
Why am I the fielder?
... who lets him go to first. Apatow's film is a success, but it isn't. It's a failure, but it isn't. It's not a hit; but it's not an out. It'll hurt Apatow's average, but it won't hurt his previous home runs. I'm just the fielder ... and the ball was hit to me ... and how I view this film is my choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
