The Informant! (2009)
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Length:108 minutes
Rated R for language
The corporate whistle-blower film has been done before, albeit with a much more dramatic flair (see the 1999 Michael Mann classic The Insider). But with director Steven Soderbergh, the director of the Ocean's trilogy, you just knew his snarky, white-collar humor was bound to prevail. While star Matt Damon continues to show his acting chops, The Informant! is more of a mess than the tangled web of lies Damon's character spins.
Based on a true story and the novel of the same name by Kurt Eichenwald, Matt Damon (Green Zone, The Adjustment Bureau) play Mark Whitacre, a young bio-chemist who uncovers an industry-wide price fixing scandal; armed with the knowledge of his company's deviance, Mark soon perpetrates a fraud that will swindle the FBI, the US government, his company, and others. Damon truly is the only highlight to the movie, though he is hardly recognizable. Packing on the pounds to play the stereotypical white-collar desk junkie, Damon rocks a porn 'stache and beer gut that Ron Burgundy would lust after. Damon's Whitacre will drive you nuts with his compulsive and fervent lying, even when he is caught in the act.
Beyond Damon, there is little to the movie. The events that showcase Mark's fraud are scattered and messy; though you can trail what is happening, it is exhausting trying to maintain a running record of each lie. Personally, I found it extremely frustrating that the movie failed to truly present Mark's motivation or need to commit fraud. As an accounting major, I am taught the signs of a fraudster as well as reasons often accompanying such an act. While the movie does do an excellent job mentioning how Mark's behavior had changed, etc., it fails to explain what was his ultimate motivation to perpetrate the fraud.
For a movie claiming to be a comedy, the laughs are few and far between, often resulting in the more dry variety. Soderbergh is known for his more "sophisticated" humor, and The Informant! is no exception. However, it would be nice if the humor was actually...well...humorous. It is certainly worth watching to see a pudgy Matt Damon in action, but be prepared to feel apathetic towards the film in the end.
Final Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote:
Mark Whitacre: "When polar bears hunt, they crouch down by a hole in the ice and wait for a seal to pop up. They keep one paw over their nose so that they blend in, because they've got those black noses. They'd blend in perfectly if not for the nose. So the question is, how do they know their noses are black? From looking at other polar bears? Do they see their reflections in the water and think, "I'd be invisible if not for that." That seems like a lot of thinking for a bear."
The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)
Directed by Grant Heslov
Length:94 minutes
Rated R for language, some drug content, and brief nudity
Clooney, Spacey, Bridges, McGregor...some of the biggest A-listers in Hollywood who happen to be Oscar-caliber actors to boot all in one film? Sign me up! But wait...don't let the awesome star power fool you; The Men Who Stare at Goats far from lives up to the talent found in the film. Boasting two of last year's Oscar nominees (not to mention 2009 Best Actor winner Jeff Bridges), you would expect a great film no matter how lacking the material may be. Unfortunately, this serves as a prime example of how to waste great talent.
Set in the early 2000s during the start of the second Iraq war, Ewan McGregor (Angels & Demons, The Ghost Writer) plays Bob Wilton, an American journalist who heads to cover the "action" in attempt to prove his journalistic prowess. What Bob soon uncovers is a secret government project involving the training of a new group of soldiers, called Jedi (this is where you should start rolling your eyes), who attempt to master psionic powers and New Age practices to bring peace to the world. This secret covert operation is revealed by Lyn Cassady, an eccentric level-3 Jedi played by the dashing George Clooney (Fantastic Mr. Fox, The American). Armed with the knowledge that Bob himself has the potential to become a Jedi, the pair set off to find Lyn's former troop leader Bill Django, a New Age hippie who values peace, love, dance, and flower power over combat, portrayed by 2009's Best Actor Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart, Tron Legacy).
Whew...that's a lot to absorb. And I'll admit, even after watching the film, it doesn't make sense. In fact, the whole movie doesn't really have a point; it is over the top to the point of extreme ridiculousness. Are there laughs to be had? Sure! I found myself laughing out loud at several scenes, particularly earlier in the movie when we see the Jedi "training". Without a doubt, the strongest scenes of the film are those involving Jeff Bridges; his portrayal as a military man turned hippie is indeed humorous. But these individual performances are not enough to overcome the lack of coherent plot and lunacy that is The Men Who Stare at Goats.
Certainly one could interpret the film as an overall comparison of the Iraq War to the Vietnam War. But if the film is attempting to use a farce to critically analyze this modern war, it leaves the audience scratching its head more than with a new outlook. While you will enjoy some laughs, this is one film you will not regret missing if you decide to pass.
Final Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote:
Larry Hooper: "Lieutenant Colonel Django used funds from the project's black budget to procure prostitutes..."
Bill Django: "That's a lie!"
Larry Hooper: "...and to get drugs for himself and his men."
Bill Django: "That...well, the hooker thing is definitely a lie."
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
Directed by Lee Daniels
Length: 109 minutes
Rated R for child abuse including sexual assault, and pervasive language
Whew...take a deep breath and try to collect yourself. Witnessing the brutality, the horror, the gravity that is Precious is not an enjoyable experience; it's one that leaves you feeling broken; as if you have just seen every horror imaginable - the things you think could never possibly happen in the "real" world. Movies often allow us to live a fantasy that would normally be impossible; in this case, it leaves you wanting to crawl into the fetal position and cry. Though Precious is a difficult film, it has to be considered required viewing for all, if only to understand the trauma that plagues a community influenced by its impoverished, uneducated, and dilapidated condition.
Focusing on the movie's namesake, Oscar nominated newcomer Gabourey Sidibe (The Big C, Yelling to the Sky) plays Precious Jones, a 16 year-old illiterate, obese, impoverished girl that is abused by her mother and sexually assaulted and twice impregnated by her father. Beaten, belittled, infected, battered, raped...there are not enough words to describe the torture Precious must endure. It truly can be hard to watch at times - I'll admit I found myself tearing up during several scenes. The old expression "when it rains it pours" embodies the life Precious is forced to live. Sidibe truly is magnificent in her first motion picture, conveying not only the physical toll her abuse takes on her but also the psychological effects (not surprising considering she has a degree in psychology) that force Precious to escape to a fantasy world in which every one loves and adores her.
Without a doubt, what makes the film so compelling is the horrific performance of recent Oscar winner Mo'Nique (The Mo'Nique Show, Steppin: The Movie) as Mary, Precious's mother. As the abusive mother, Mary admittedly wishes Precious had never existed, instead using the girl to increase her welfare allocation. The verbal and physical pain that Mary inflicts on her daughter is detestable - you will truly hate her character, even as you learn about the abusive cycle that often accompanies these unfortunate scenarios. Mo'Nique is every bit deserving of her Oscar as she has created the epitome of a jealous, spiteful parent that hates the very thought of her daughter.
Another element of the film that may be lost on some due to the graphic nature of the story is the in-depth analysis of impoverished and urban communities that often prove to be a breeding ground for crime, abuse, drugs, etc. This is not to say that the movie relies on stereotypes or prejudices; on the contrary, the film shows how even intelligent, gifted people can be held back by the limitations they inherent via their living conditions and upbringing. Coming from a city that is highly segregated between private and public schools, it is apparent how, when given scare resources and almost insurmountable limitations, one can begin to fall prey to the image that often plagues the "ghetto".
While Precious may not be the best film of the year, it certainly is one of the most memorable, if only for the traumatic scenes that leave a lasting scar on your soul. A great movie can move you, as you empathize with the characters, share their emotions, etc. While Precious will certainly move you, this is one of the few films I have ever seen that really hits you in the gut, twisting your insides at the level of hate we as humans can achieve. Though it may not prove to be an enjoyable experience, you must watch this film: the story of a precious girl who struggles to overcome the never-ending hardships of her life, but who continues to preserve and vows to break the cycle of abuse for her children and her future.
Final Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Oscar Winners:
Best Supporting Actress - Mo'Nique
Best Adapted Screenplay
Oscar Nominations:
Best Achievement in Directing - Lee Daniels
Best Achievement in Editing
Best Motion Picture
Best Actress in a Leading Role - Gabourey Sidibe
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Directed by Tim Burton
Length:108 minutes
Rated PG for fantasy action/violence involving scary images and situations, and for a smoking caterpillar
Rated PG for a smoking caterpillar...pretty sure that sums up what you can expect from Tim Burton's interpretation of Lewis Carroll's classic Alice in Wonderland. Famous for his dark, twisted, and typically drab films, Burton has slightly strayed from his typical M.O., key word being slightly. This is definitely not the same Alice that Disney released in 1951. With a grown-up protagonist, a charred wasteland known as Underland (Carroll's name of the fictional world Alice finds at the bottom of the rabbit hole), and an "epic" battle between the dreaded jabberwocky, Burton has delivered a relatively enjoyable experience, albeit a flawed film that cannot overcome its shortcomings.
Departing from the traditional renditions, Burton has blended both of Carroll's works, Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, with a bit of artistic licensing to create a new story from the one we all grew up knowing. This go around, Alice is a 19-year old girl; an odd young girl running away from what is expected of her by society. All the initial elements are there: the white rabbit in a waste coat with a pocket watch, the rabbit hole, the shrinking potion, the growing cake, so on and so on (cue "White Rabbit" by Jefferson Airplane at any moment). However, as soon as Alice steps through the door into Underland, the story takes a decidedly different and darker tone. The "prophecy" has predicted Alice's return with the goal of slaying the deadly jabberwocky - a fire-breathing dragon that has destroyed the land and ensured the reign of the literal big-headed and shrill Red Queen, Burton squeeze Helen Bonham Carter (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, The King's Speech).
Perhaps the most essential element of the film is the casting of Alice, portrayed by Mia Wasikowska (In Treatment, The Kids Are All Right), a performance best summarized by the Red Queen's favorite line: "Off with their head!" Wasikowska's performance is quite listless, leaving you clamoring for just one inkling of emotion, excitement, sadness...something! Of course, everyone really just wants to know about Johnny Depp (The Rum Diary, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides) and his much-anticipated role as the Mad Hatter. While Depp certainly does not suffer from the same problems that plague Wasikowska's performance, Depp could not be consider at the top of his game. Though the Mad Hatter is certainly one of the better characters, his accent (a mix of gap-teethed whistling and an angry Scottish lunatic) can be very difficult to understand at times. Minor gripes aside, the scenes involving the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Hatter are certainly some of the best.
Where the story and acting may be lacking in excitement or unpredictability, the visuals are very nice to look at. Filmed in 2-D then converted to 3-D, you can really tell the difference between this and say Avatar. The highest grossing film of all-time was shot entirely in 3-D, eliminating the campy elements that often are associated with the third dimension (i.e. a spear coming at you, etc.); instead, Avatar and its incredibly beautiful cinematography added depth, texture, and believability to its luscious forest world. In the case of Alice in Wonderland, it relies more on the stereotypical elements. While it is still a pretty film to look at, and the 3-D certainly adds to the experience, it cannot compare to the true standard-bearer that recently changed cinematography for all movies attempting the third dimension.
So where does this leave us? Enjoyable? Certainly! This is a fun movie, overall, filled with a few good chuckles/laughs, pretty visuals, and one awesome dance move (just you wait till you vigorously futterwagon all night long). But is this an instant classic that clamors for repeat viewings, cult classic status, or even warrant the typical Burton legion of fandom love? No! Alice in Wonderland is a flawed movie that the more serious film-goer may not be able to overlook. But for a casual, fun night out, it's certainly worth the exorbitant price you'll pay for the 3-D.
Final Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote:
Mad-Hatter: "I shall futterwagon quite vigorously!"
Oscar Winners
Best Achievement in Art Direction
Best Achievement in Costume Design
Oscar Nominations:
Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Shutter Island (2010)
Directed by Martin Scorsese
Length: 138 minutesRated R for disturbing violent content, language, and some nudity
Scorsese, DiCaprio, mysterious yet eerie film, huge buzz...what else can you ask for!?!? The long awaited, oft-delayed Shutter Island arrives as perhaps the most anticipated movie so far this year. I remember my initial reaction to the trailer (almost two years ago, it seems) and excitement over the director, cast, plot, etc. Having built huge expectations, reading numerous positive reviews, and consulting with my hard-to-please roommate, I eagerly attended what I anticipated to be a modern masterpiece. Instead, I was left crushed; what was suppose to be a suspenseful mystery turned out to be rather boring and anything but a mystery.
Set in 1954, Shutter Island centers on Scorsese standard Leonard DiCaprio (Inception, Revolutionary Road) as Teddy Daniels, a US Marshall seeking a patient who has escaped from her prison on the isolated island. Based on a novel by Dennis Lehane (Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone), Shutter Island is a departure from the traditional format utilized by Lehane, taking a much darker tone that leaves the audience with a sense of danger and uncertainty. As the mystery begins to unravel, it becomes apparent that there is more to the story then initially perceived.
To start on a positive note, the acting is indeed top notch. I have been a huge DiCaprio fan for quite some time now, and he continues to prove his prowess. The depth of his character cannot be questioned or denied. I even enjoyed the cinematography of the film: the dark, somber tones really cast a foreboding and dismal haze over the film setting the perfect mood for a dark mystery. So, with these positives, what could have caused my expectations to be dashed?
I have always enjoyed a good mystery; the traditional "who done it" that follows a detective searching for clues to the puzzle, occasionally revealing some master conspiracy in the process. Growing up, it was often difficult to watch mysteries with my mother as she would ALWAYS solve the show/movie before the end. I cannot tell you how many times my stepfather and I would scream in frustration as, of course, she would end up being correct. It would seem all of that detective work on my mother's part has rubbed off on me, as I now find myself constantly solving the puzzle before the conclusion. For the most part, this can prove to be a fun element to the mystery genre; however, it can also be a real negative if you are able to solve the mystery fairly easily and quickly. While I may not have had every single detail figured out, I was able to solve the mystery prior to seeing the film. Using contextual clues from the previews, I knew exactly what was going to happen before it even unfolded. In fact, I even told my friend my theory prior to seeing the movie; this theory proved to be correct.
While I do not believe the mystery is implicitly that easy to solve, in this particular case, it can be quite detrimental to the viewing experience when the big reveal at the end isn't that shocking. Equated to The Sixth Sense in terms of shock value, I was sorely disappointed. To boot, I found the movie to be rather slow throughout, dragging for a majority of the film. Though it is hard to pinpoint exact scenes to cut or shorten, the film had me looking at my watch wondering how much longer I had to sit.
While my review may not indicate it, I still feel as if you should see this movie. I feel as if my experience with the movie will prove to be the exception and less of the norm. The acting is good, boasted by beautiful camera work and visual decor. While some may be able to solve the mystery, the story is still enjoyable enough for the average movie goer. The details can bog you down, so be patient in trying to maintain a working encyclopedia for the film. If you can sit back, put down your detective's notepad, and enjoy the film, I believe you will find an enjoyable experience. But if you are able to solve the mystery, be prepared for a rather dull ride.
Final Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote: "Match in the gas tank...boom boom" (He went full retard)
Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
Directed by Spike Jonze
Length: 101 minutes
Rated PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action, and brief language
Even if you hate reading, you have to admit you had at least one favorite book/story as a child. There are the classic Dr. Seuss books, The Rainbow Fish, and many more; but almost everyone cherished Maurice Sendak's classic children's book Where the Wild Things Are - a classic tale of a young boy craving attention and adventure, who runs away to an island of monstrous creatures who embrace the boy (Max) as their king. While the modern master Spike Jonze (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich) does not stray too far from the basic concept of Sendak's work, the interpretation takes on a much darker tone that may be lost on the more casual viewer.
As stated earlier, the protagonist is Max, played by Max Records (interesting name, eh?), a young, angry, and adventurous boy who craves attention and the chance to be wild. Raised by his single mother, portrayed by Catherine Keener (Cyrus, The Soloist), Max screams, claws, and bites at those who fail to take the time to play with him. After one particularly nasty fight, Max runs away from home, only to take a boat that whisk him away to a strange island full of giant creatures that think Max is their king. Wait...he is whisked away on a boat to an island? I know, I know...can we say deus ex machina; but you have to remember this is a movie told from the eyes of a young child with a vivid imagination. So just go with it; in fact, just accept a majority of the movie as a child would and you will enjoy it more. Crowned king, Max leads the monsters in dog piles, fort building, and dirt clod wars. As we learn more about the personalities and flaws of the characters, Max's fantasy develops a more disturbing meaning.
While Where the Wild Things Are can be interpreted in many ways, I took the monsters to be a representation of Max's family and how he perceives himself in said family. Carol, voiced by everyone's favorite mobster James Gandolfini (Welcome to the Rileys, The Sopranos), represents a patriarchal figure for Max; due to Carol's unpredictable and sometimes violent nature, it is not unreasonable to believe Max had an abusive father that is no longer a part of his life. Though Carol loves Max, he often threatens violence on those that disagree or hurt him. Paul Dano (The Extra Man, There Will Be Blood) voices Alexander, the goat-like creature that nobody listens or pays attention to, a la Max. These are but a few of the creatures, but you can begin to understand that Max is more than just an adventurous little boy, but a person suffering from psychological trauma. Trauma manifested via aggression, wild behavior, and a vivid imagination that all lead to a constant need to "act out."
Maurice Sendak wrote a timeless classic enjoyed not just by children but adults as well; however, Spike Jonze has developed a much darker rendition aimed at challenging the audience to look past the surface of the film. While it is easy to see Max has a vivid imagination that leads to adventures and trouble almost equally, the reasons for his behavior can be inferred if one can connect the dots between Max's fantasy and his real world. We all manifest the happenings in our lives in different ways. Some people write poetry or songs; some use such events to motivate them towards a greater goal. For a little boy like Max, he creates an entire world where he has friends that listen, play the games he develops, and follow his ideas with conviction. Ultimately, the film poses the question: where are your wild things?
Final Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote:
Carol: "If I was stranded on a desert island and could only take one thing, it'd be Douglas. We can share him if you want."
Pandorum (2009)
Directed by Christian Alvart
Length: 108 minutes
Rated R for strong horror violence and language
Growing up the son of Trekkies (or Trekkers if you prefer), I have always had an infinity for the science fiction genre. I still fondly remember when my stepfather introduced me to Star Wars; to sum up my family's love for all that is geeky, we often have family outings consisting of the latest sci-fi blockbuster and Mexican food. That being said, I'm also quite critical of the genre since it is often a breeding ground for campy B-movies. Bolstered by an intriguing preview and an actor known as an indie-darling, I was immediately interested in Pandorum. While it will not go down as an instant classic or modern masterpiece, the thrills and chills found within this film are enough to warrant a viewing.
Set in the year 2174, Pandorum begins with a common thread to the sci-fi world: overpopulation and dwindling resources on earth force humans to seek new colonization options. Aboard the ark-like Elysium, two crew members awake with little recollection of their mission. Dazed and confused by the condition of the ship, Bower, the protagonist portrayed by the vastly underrated and often intense Ben Foster (Here, The Messenger) goes out alone into the dark ship to discover what has happened, guided only by the voice of Payton, played by Dennis Quaid (The Special Relationship, Legion). Soon Bower discovers that not only is something wrong with the ship, but he is not alone.
I really enjoyed the opening parts of the movie, specifically the scenes when Bower is first leaving to explore the ship. Pandorum definitely channels the claustrophobic, impending doom made popular by the ventilation scenes in the original Alien. While the film does a good job of keeping the chilling "you know something is about to happen" feeling, the second half fails to capture the intensity of the opening half. As Bower's memory begins to return and he journeys further into the ship, the intensity is substituted for a more traditional horror film (a la a slasher flick). While these later parts are by no means terrible, it fails to maintain the initial momentum that makes the movie so creepy and promising.
Visually, Pandorum is a nice looking film that boast interesting designs. While the core of the story may not be too original, certain elements add a distinct and original flair to the film. Specifically, the ship is massive and intriguing in its layout, while the exterior shots of the ship are unlike most other ones seen. While classic masterpieces such as Alien and The Thing will still carry the torch for the science fiction/horror genre, Pandorum is a decent attempt at joining the ranks of the greatest. Perhaps if the film had been better able to capture the anxiety and fear of the opening scenes, the film could have fared much better. Instead, we are left with a decent attempt that will certainly entertain yet leave you wanting more.
Final Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Favorite Quote: uh...not really a memorable quotes kind of movie
