Netflix Nuggets #3

We've recently had a Documentary Edition and a Television Edition of Netflix Nuggets, but that's hardly meant to imply I haven't been keeping up with the good ol' standard narrative movies too. I've once again compiled another small list of "regular movie" titles I've found whilst cruising the digital aisles of Netflix, which you can find below. Enjoy!

(And by all means, if there are any titles you'd like to get my thoughts on, feel free to leave suggestions in the Comments section. I welcome any and all constructive input!)


BUTTER

I'm a sucker for a good ensemble cast movie, especially when it comes to comedies. Usually you can tell everyone had a good time on set working with each other by how well their onscreen chemistry is conveyed, and the more stars in a single flick the higher the chance one of your favorites is in the mix. It was these qualities that initially drew me to Butter; namely the presence of Hugh Jackman (as a cowboy hat-wearing car salesman, no less), Olivia Wilde, and Rob Corddry. The story follows two primary protagonists: Laura Pickler (Jennifer Garner), the wife of famed butter sculptor Bob Pickler (Ty Burrell), and Destiny, (Yara Shahidi) an orphan who has spent most of her life moving from foster home to foster home. When Destiny decides she wants to enter the Butter Sculpting Competition that Bob has dominated year after year, Bob decides he's ready to hang up his tools and let someone else have the spotlight. But Laura isn't ready to fade into the background, and thus begins an occasionally funny, occasionally silly, occasionally meandering tale of intrigue and social politics. Butter plays on a number of stereotypes for laughs; namely that of aggressively conservative American housewives. Garner plays the role with sufficient stuffiness, but some of the jokes fall a bit flat before all is said and done. The rest of the cast is entertaining enough, but not as laugh-out-loud hilarious as I was expecting. Wilde plays an excessively shallow stripper whose primary mode of transportation is a bicycle and again, the concept is great; watching her attempt to pedal away in a huff wearing heels and revealing clothing. But it wears out its welcome all too soon. The saving grace of the movie is Yara Shahidi, who is more or less the "straight man" to the other characters' more wacky tendencies. She's not going to go up for any Oscars, but she's a good child actor and she plays her role convincingly well. Overall Butter is entertaining enough, and squeaked by with an acceptable rating in my book; but it really could have and should have been much better. It's funny in places, and I laughed once or twice; but despite the very definite plot structure the whole movie felt a little lackluster - as though it had no sense of direction or purpose.


DARK HORSE

Dark Horse was a movie I queued up on a total whim - and a little bit because it had Selma Blair. Abe (Jordan Gelber) is a 30-something-year-old man with a pretty bad case of arrested development. He lives at home, he works for his Dad's company, he spends most of his money on collectible action figures and toys; he's every "failure to launch" cliche rolled into one. He meets Miranda (Selma Blair) at a wedding at the beginning of the film and commences pursuing her romantically, in the process discovering that she's also living at home and struggling with some failure-to-launch of her own. An unlikely relationship develops between the two, and in a desperate bid to give her life some sense of purpose she accepts Abe's proposal of marriage. From there, this already-strange film takes an even stranger turn as some of the layers of symbolism and meaning embedded within begin to unravel. Dark Horse is a head-scratcher; at least it was for me. Abe is incredibly unlikeable as a character; he has a short temper, his hobbies are puerile to the point of pathetic, and his delusions about himself are undeniably visible. Miranda is equally inscrutable as it's unclear if she's clinically depressed or just sad all the time. And while it's possible to have unlikeable characters be compelling, it's a fine line to tread and it's hard to say whether or not Dark Horse pulls this off. This is largely due to the unexpectedly avant-garde twist the film employs within its final half hour or so. It goes to great lengths to lay out a map of its meaning and symbolism, so maybe it's just that I didn't find anything to relate to. But I was overwhelmed by a relative apathy by the film's conclusion; an apathy accented by a kind of hopelessness. I'm not entirely sure how to categorize Dark Horse; it's not strictly a comedy or a drama or a black comedy. It's more akin to a mashup between the Coen Brothers and David Lynch - both of whom I greatly admire. I didn't really like this movie, but it has all the earmarks of a cult classic so I won't go so far as to say it's not worth watching. But personally, I was neither wholly compelled nor wholly repelled by the experience.


IDENTITY

Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (or Ten Little Indians...after it was renamed from a much more offensive title) was a seminal work of mystery literature, and has gone on to directly or indirectly influence thrillers and mystery books and films alike ever since its release in 1939. Identity, while not a direct adaptation of Christie's work, nevertheless uses some of the narrative devices employed by that book. It's a fairly simple setup: ten strangers arrive at a motel in the middle of nowhere during a rain storm that's cut them off from their respective destinations. Stranded, the various characters begin getting picked off slowly by a deranged murderer and of course begin to panic - each suspecting the other of guilt in turn. As you can expect, there's a big twist that ties the whole thing together - with a second twist closing out the film just before the credits. Both twists are fairly predictable, though you probably won't see them coming too far out. John Cusack takes the lead as limo driver/former cop Ed Dakota. He does an admirable job as a concerned by relatively tight-lipped character, appropriately similar enough to the anti-hero detectives types of hard-boiled crime novels. Amanda Peet plays Paris, a hooker attempting to restart her life far away from her former life in Vegas. Ray Liotta plays a cop (again) named Sam Rhodes, who seems to be hiding a pretty damning secret of some kind - but of course I'm not about to spill the beans on that front. I can't say too much more about the movie without giving something away, but overall it's a good thriller with some psychological horror elements thrown in for effect. Since it takes place at a lonely motel and involves the murder of some of its occupants, it reminded me of Psycho in several places. There are one or two grisly moments that move the film from basic thriller into more slasher movie territory, but they're few and far enough between that I wouldn't go so far as to call Identity a horror movie. Again, the twists don't take too long to unravel, so Identity won't have you on the very edge of your seat the whole time. But it's a solid entry in the genre and for any diehard fans of mystery thrillers it's a must see.


IRON SKY

As I've mentioned before, in a few places, B-grade cinema and/or the overall grindhouse aesthetic has made a solid comeback in recent memory. We're sophisticated enough as an audience (for the most part) to need a foray into ironic movies replete with self-deprecation every once in awhile. Personally, it's a trend I enjoy - regardless of how it's presented or where it comes up. While Iron Sky was actually a largely crowd-sourced film and not technically part of the "Hollywood machine," it still fits into this ironically ridiculous tradition I've come to enjoy so much. The concept is as ridiculous as you could possibly conceive: after being defeated in WWII, the Nazis retreated to the dark side of the moon to rebuild their defenses and regroup for an all out assault on planet Earth in the future. The movie more or less opens on the events that lead into their attempted return and predictably works its way into an epic space battle before conclusion. The overall idea is silly enough, but there's plenty of equally ridiculous goings-on in the smaller details of the story including the re-election of a Sarah Palin-like presidential figure (Stephanie Paul), a black astronaut (Christopher Kirby) the Nazis "turned" white in an attempt to make him a part of the "Master Race," and several others. Iron Sky is, as you can surmise, a comedy. And I laughed out loud plenty of times, but it wasn't as good a movie as I was hoping it would be. Just about all the pieces are there, but one or two of the actors overdo the already hyperbolic elements in the film and one too many times the movie goes careening into the eye-rolling without sufficient subtlety. Where it really succeeds as a spectacle is when you consider that much of the film was made through Wreck-A-Movie; a company that specializes in participatory cinema and in crowdsourcing various aspects of production. And I loved the concept enough to say that I recommend seeing Iron Sky, despite the fact that - objectively - it's not that great of a movie. But it's self-aware enough to make it worth seeing, and there are a number of references to other movies with similar themes or stories: namely Der Untergang (Downfall) and Dr. Strangelove. In fact, Iron Sky feels a lot like an homage to Dr. Strangelove - though it's not anywhere close to being as strong a film. I think ultimately where the movie fails is in attempting to weave too much social commentary into its narrative; I think it should have just stuck to being goofy and self-deprecating. Such as it is, Iron Sky is still unique and funny enough to be worth your time. And it's a real novelty of participatory cinema to boot; if it doesn't give you the itch to check out Wreck-A-Movie and possibly become a part of their next production - I don't know what will.


LOVE

I can't help but recollect the dark words of Agent Smith in The Matrix Revolutions every time I see this title: "...only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love." And Love is certainly not without its fair share of insipidness. But there's definitely more to it, and it's not all bad - I'm relatively surprised to say. Fans of Angels and Airwaves will recognize this film right away as part of the band's multi-platform media endeavors. Fortunately, if you're not a fan of Angels and Airwaves, there's not enough of their signature here to be a deterrent. The movie begins with a Civil War battle on the brink of erupting. One of the soldiers is told by his commanding officer to leave the battlefield in search of an artifact recently discovered and after wandering for a brief montage the soldier comes upon a crater - though we don't see what's within. We are then taken to a space station where a lone astronaut loses contact with mission control for reasons we're not yet privy to. The next 50 minutes or so of the film's run time is occupied with charting his loosening grip on reality, as the isolation slowly drives him crazy. The last 20 minutes or so of the movie deal with how his isolation is resolved and how he's brought to a higher plane of existence because of it. If it sounds an awful lot like 2001: A Space Odyssey that's because it very much is. In fact, the film goes further than simple homage and openly reproduces elements from that film; in some cases shot-for-shot. You don't get the impression that it's done maliciously or with the expectation of surpassing Kubrick's masterpiece, so it's not wholly offensive - at least it wasn't to me. But it wouldn't be unfair to say that this movie is the poor man's 2001. Love was a strange viewing experience for me, because it repeatedly had me loving it and then hating it - sometimes within the space of a few minutes. The long stretches on the space station are mercilessly tedious; though this was likely intentional and meant to convey the sense of loneliness and instability the astronaut experiences. Interspersed with these vignettes are dreams the astronaut has of a beautiful woman who is seductively dressed and posed, and constantly having her hair tossed about by some stock fan off camera. These scenes could be transplanted shot-for-shot into a tawdry rap music video and they'd be perfectly at home, so it was in these moments - for example - that I despised this movie. Then, during the film's opening Civil War battle scene, I was awestruck by how beautifully the combat was captured in slow motion. One particular shot made my mouth literally hang open: the grizzled and long haired general swings his saber as the soldiers around him clash in conflict - all in muted tones and caught in a jaw-dropping slow motion. If slow-mo were ever being exploited gratuitously, it's in the opening moments of this film. But that didn't make it any less captivating to see. Love is certainly more optimistic and more light than 2001 (in case you couldn't tell by the title), and for all its faults - I ultimately enjoyed it. Love is tedious, beautiful, pretentious, thought-provoking, and haunting...not in that order, and sometimes all at once. It's cerebral and definitely on the experimental side; an art-house film of debatable merit, but undeniable presentation.


THE REBOUND

It should come as no secret to frequent readers of this blog or friends of mine that I like chick flicks as a general rule. And having seen all of the bigger and better-known titles I can think of, I'm always on the lookout for an indie or underground rom-com to tide me over until the next Sleepless In Seattle, 13 Going on 30, Crazy, Stupid, Love, etc. It was by such intent I was directed towards The Rebound, starring Catherine Zeta-Jones as leading lady Sandy - a woman whose recent divorce has taken more of a toll on her personal life than she cares to admit. Justin Bartha plays Aram, a young man she meets at a Women's Center where he volunteers. At the urging of her stock character close friend, Sandy decides to "get back out there" into the dating world while Aram becomes something of a nanny to Sandy's two children. But they predictably begin to form a romantic bond that transcends their relative age gap and the rest is something you've seen before in a host of other, and more importantly, better films. I'm trying to resist the urge to be too vicious with this movie, but it's a bit of a struggle given how pitifully it achieves its goals. To start with, Aram is a perfect character. There's no need for character development with him because he's already a better human being than anyone you've met; you could practically hear the writer's backlog of Freudian hangups being poured into him during the writing process. He's a Women's Studies studies major with a passion for feminism who volunteers at a Women's Center, he's great with kids, he's conscientious and respectful all the time regardless of the circumstance, he does humanitarian work, he's technically divorced because he was in a green-card marriage for a close friend of his who was on the verge of being deported: he's perfect. He's too perfect, even for a chick flick. Then there's Sandy, who is constantly injecting her conversations with various feminist mantras. Feminism is awesome, I mean that - I don't have anything against feminists and I'm certainly not sexist. But we only need to hear her tell her daughter about the power she has as a woman or comment on how she doesn't need a man once or twice to get the point. She's every annoying feminist cliche rolled into one and to top it off, Zeta-Jones turns in a subpar performance. She's not terrible, but she's been so much better in so many other films I was genuinely surprised to see her acting with such visible effort. I don't really mind a predictable story if it's handled the right way; there's a way to be pleasantly predictable without just slacking off on keeping the film engaging. The Rebound is a good example of the latter; you can see practically every beat coming a mile away and there's precious little with which to justify it. The premise of The Rebound was compelling enough; I really liked the idea of exploring the societal double standard that says men dating younger women is somehow more appropriate than vice versa. But instead all I got was Justin Bartha always saying the perfect thing and Catherine Zeta-Jones trying too hard.


SLEEPWALK WITH ME

Any Mike Birbiglia fans in the audience? If so then this title should be very familiar. Birbiglia has gained critical acclaim with his one man show of the same title. But Sleepwalk With Me, the film, is fortunately not just an exercise in redundancy. The movie opens with Mike addressing the camera, opening the film the way he does his standup performance. From there, it transitions into a standard narrative - occasionally interspersed with vignettes of Birbiglia addressing the camera, transitioning from various parts of his story. The story he tells is one that's the textbook definition of bittersweet, and almost embarrassingly frank. Mike Pandamiglio (Birbiglia's cinematic counterpart) is a struggling standup comic who feels like his life is in a bit of a rut. He's in a steady relationship with Abby (Lauren Ambrose), but he's beginning to develop a sleepwalking problem that's more than once put him in precarious positions. As he begins to pursue his standup career more seriously, his relationship with Abby begins to crumble and his sleepwalking becomes exponentially more problematic. Birbiglia opens the film by saying that everything he's about to relay is fact; that this is a completely true story. He makes mention that often after his shows people ask him if it really did happen the way he says it did, and asserts that he's fabricated nothing. Despite some of the rather shocking things that happen to him - mostly on account of his sleepwalking - the film evinces a kind of sincerity that seems to corroborate Birbiglia's claim. Moreover, he makes no attempt to paint himself as a hero or a great guy throughout the course of the film - lending the whole movie an even greater feeling of authenticity. Sleepwalk With Me has a number of a laugh out loud moments, and just as many that will make you cringe with embarrassment or mortification for the people involved. Birbiglia's standup is much more laugh-a-minute than this film, which is as many parts drama as it is comedy. But Birbiglia is such an evidently likeable guy - even when he's not behaving in a likeable way - that it's hard to deny the inherent charm the film brings to the table. I greatly enjoyed Sleepwalk With Me; it's a fantastic piece of independent cinema that reminds you just how powerful low budget films can be with the right material in the hands of the right people. If you've seen Birbiglia's one-man show then Sleepwalk With Me won't offer any revelations you're not already privy to. But that shouldn't put you off watching it. And even if you don't know the first thing about Mike Birbiglia, Sleepwalk With Me is the perfect introduction.

Netflix Nuggets - Documentary Edition

It's a new year, and I've got yet another special edition in the Netflix Nuggets series. I've been scratching the documentary itch lately, and as a result I have a collection of documentaries I'd like to share with you. So without further adieu, we kick off 2013 with Netflix Nuggets: Documentary Edition!

 
(A)SEXUAL

Whether you regard it as a positive or negative aspect of our culture, sex is a big part of the media machine. From ads to films to books to music to just about everywhere in between, we've heard it before and we can vouch for its effectiveness: sex sells. Various subcultures in the country have responded to it in different ways and for different reasons. But the discussion about sex and its prominence in our day-to-day lives - for better or worse - has left a subset of society alienated: asexuals. It should come as little surprise that many (including myself before seeing this film) aren't even aware that such people exist; that there are those in the population who have no interest in sexual activity of any kind whatsoever. Or at least, that such people exist outside of certain religious or societal constraints - that they, like so many others, are simply born that way. The documentary primarily follows David Jay, a self-proclaimed asexual who took it upon himself to start a website for other people like himself to gather and share ideas. As a kind of de facto spokesperson for the asexual community, David is nonetheless a visibly humble individual whose primary motivation is educating both the public and asexuals themselves on how to live in a society that has little place for them. The film spans a few years and articulates some really fascinating talking points regarding how asexuals often struggle in their relationships because many simply don't understand their way of thinking. The film was extensively educational for me, and while it doesn't feature a lot of flash or flare it was still engrossing and very entertaining. One particularly compelling scene depicted a group of asexuals at a gay pride parade. I was genuinely surprised to see how many people at the parade indirectly or openly shunned these people despite being recipients of such bigotry themselves. I myself admit I can't even begin to understand what it would be like living without any kind of sexual impulse, even after this documentary. But the film was truly eye-opening and really helped me to gain fresh perspective in my worldview.


CLEANFLIX

Having grown up in a fairly conservative household (and homeschooled to boot), I had heard a lot about the company Cleanflicks and those like it in the early 2000s. Cleanflicks' business model was fairly simple: they took major motion pictures - usually R or PG-13 rated, edited them to remove offensive content (nudity, language, violence, etc.), and then resold them. A number of other services like it began to crop up, and ultimately caught the eye of Hollywood at large. Predictably, or if you remember this from the news, the company was handed a ruling indicating they were in violation of copyright law - and what followed is largely a tale of loopholes and outright flouting of legal precedent. The documentary itself, however, reveals a number of details about the goings-on behind the scenes of the business that make this story far more intriguing than one might initially expect. I was drawn to this documentary because I remember Cleanflicks from my growin' up years, and while I've developed media tastes that stray far outside those in which I was raised - I never found fault with the idea of studios publicly releasing edited versions of their films for more sensitive viewers. It's a service they provide for airlines and television networks (a point the film brings up) after all. But Cleanflix isn't an activist's manifesto; it's just an honest look at the story of this business. Several interviews offer differing opinions on the issue of such a business's legitimacy ranging from the founders and owners of the business, to "man on the street" type interviews, to some of the directors whose work was in question. The film does a brilliant job of illustrating some of the objective problems with a business such as this; like the dangers of acclimating to censorship, the hypocrisy of running an illegal business focused on "family values," and the potential damage to be done by extensive psychological repression. The movie didn't really make any points I disagreed with, so I felt kinship with the filmmakers as a result. But what I found most revelatory were the details of how the business was run, in some cases by people who weren't even technically affiliated with the Cleanflicks branding. As a result, the film almost plays like a retrospective on a mafia family as it details the intrigue and scandal woven throughout the story of this business and the people it ultimately effected - for better or worse.


MANSOME
 
I'm a big fan of Morgan Spurlock. Super Size Me and The Greatest Movie Ever Sold are two of my favorite documentaries, and Spurlock is every bit deserving of the recognition he's received on behalf of his creative endeavors. So it was with high expectations that I sat down to Mansome, Spurlock's latest film, which attempts to outline the social perceptions and definitions of male grooming. It's an intriguing concept, as far as I'm concerned. And Spurlock certainly does his damndest to make it interesting. Interspersed with the documentary's overall arc is a little "mini-movie" that follows Jason Bateman and Will Arnett to the spa for some beautification treatments. But I was surprised by how lackluster the whole thing felt by the end, and what a disappointment it was overall. The biggest mistake I think the film makes is spending too much time with two men who are just patently unlikeable unless you belong to their respective societal niches. The first is Jack Passion, a man who has won numerous beard competitions around the world and holds the unofficial title of America's Greatest Beardsman. But Passion is a pretentious and even downright rude individual who claims that since a man's natural state is bearded, clean-shaven guys are "in perpetual boyhood." On the opposite end of the spectrum is Ricky Manchanda, a man made up of every annoying metro cliche you can imagine. We follow him around town as he takes various grooming treatments (at one point advising a cosmetologist to remove just two hairs from one of his eyebrows in order to shape it properly) and shows off his new clothes and takes - according to his own words - an hour and a half to get ready for each day. To each his own, to be sure. But both of these men are insufferably consumed with themselves and their excessive vanity pollutes the film. Had they only been briefly mentioned as part of a larger look at their respective societal subsets, it wouldn't be quite so detrimental. But easily 70-80 percent of the film focuses on them exclusively. Mansome has a great concept and a few winning moments (largely courtesy of Bateman and Arnett), but it's completely torpedoed by the two subjects at its center. Here's hoping Spurlock's next movie is a return to form.



MONICA & DAVID

I do not personally know very many people with mental disabilities. I have always been fascinated by how many of these people - and those who take care of them - live their day to day lives. But I've never been quite certain of just how to approach my own curiosity for fear of "doing it wrong;" perhaps directly or indirectly offending others in the process. But as part of this curiosity, I queued up Monica & David whilst looking for something to occupy space between loads of laundry on a Sunday afternoon. A relatively short piece of cinema (only 67 minutes), the movie follows the titular people: a couple with Down syndrome whose marriage is the primary topic of the film. After some brief introductions, the movie jumps right into exploring what the outset of their marriage is like. Interspersed with interviews of various family members is a collage of vignettes of the two around the house and the city as they learn the skills necessary to help them achieve a measure of independence from Monica's parents - who are their primary caretakers. It's a very touching and poignant piece of work, as several of the interviews devolve into tears before too long. But Monica & David isn't an overly sentimental film, or one obsessed with getting a rise out of its audience. It's honest and candid without being exploitative or disrespectful. And ultimately it's an incredibly uplifting experience to watch these two people display a love for each other that's heartbreaking in both its simplicity and its depth. Furthermore I appreciated the overall presentation of the film, as I didn't feel as though the subjects were treated as novelties and by extension I didn't feel as though my curiosity about their lives was intruding upon the bounds of propriety. Educational, emotional, honest, entertaining - this is an exemplary piece of documentary cinema.


OUTFOXED: RUPERT MURDOCH'S WAR ON JOURNALISM

I almost didn't include this one on account of the rather volatile nature of almost any discussion that involves Fox News. I don't present this title as much of a talking point, because all the pertinent talking points can be found within. The title is about as self explanatory as they come, and gives you a good idea of what this documentary is about. While the film is a bit dated (2004), the points it raises are as applicable as they ever were. I'm not here to promote liberalism any more than conservatism, and neither is Outfoxed. What the film does is map, point by point, the exact sins for which it feels the network should be called to account. There are a smattering of info graphics that help illustrate the extent of the documentary's contentions, in addition to interviews with former employees of the network and academics in the journalism field. Here and there, the tone of the movie skews towards the snide or the derisive as they somewhat glibly point out errors in logic or factual presentation or in the double-speak of some of the new anchors. But for the most part, Outfoxed doesn't really have to get too caustic because much of the evidence they present is damning enough. I've never taken issue with Fox News as being a largely conservative news network (something the documentary does, more or less), but I have been somewhat amused by the "Fair and Balanced" image they attempt to portray while so obviously skewing right. And this is where most of the documentary's attention is fixated: the hypocrisies the network, at a corporate as well as often individual anchor level, has perpetuated throughout the majority of its existence. Again, this film isn't likely to sway your political leanings one way or another because that's not what it's out to do. But if you're a fan of Fox News, you may find that a number of things you didn't know about the network might change your opinion. And if you're a really big fan of Fox News, you probably weren't captivated by a title such as this in the first place. But for me, this articulated and crystallized a number of misgivings I've had about the network for some time.


THE SWELL SEASON

In my opinion, Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová are two of the most beautiful people alive today. Not physically so much; I mean specifically in regards to their souls. I say that because there's an astonishing depth to the songs they've written; musically and lyrically. If you've heard anything they've recorded individually or as a duo (under the moniker The Swell Season) or seen the movie Once you know exactly what I'm talking about. The Swell Season is a fly-on-the-wall documentary about the duo that focuses specifically on the surge in fame and critical recognition they've received since the release of Once. Filmed entirely in black and white, and occasionally intercutting extended scenes from live performances, The Swell Season does a pitch perfect job of capturing the creative energy of Glen and Markéta. Glen's family is interviewed in a few places, though unfortunately no interviews with the family Irglová. There's an unflinching quality to the presentation that I greatly appreciated because it imbues the whole experience with a palpable authenticity. More than a few times the two confront each other on camera over various tour-related or personal disputes, and though sincere and candid their arguments never devolve into unnecessary aggression. As one can surmise, the two had a romantic relationship at one point in time - another aspect the documentary doesn't shy away from. And while that's long since become a part of the past, it's amazing to see how intertwined their souls are - absent a romantic relationship. If you're a fan of their music or of Once I can't recommend more strongly that you add this to your must-see list. If you were to remove the interviews, The Swell Season could almost play like a black-and-white sequel to Once in its own way. Such as it is, it's a magnificent documentary in its own right; to say nothing of the captivating music and personalities of the two principle subjects.

Les Miserables

Victor Hugo's Les Misérables has seen its fair share of adaptations. It's been a feature film over a dozen times, a miniseries, and of course the iconic 1980 stage musical - in addition to a radio production and a few foreign ripoffs. This year saw the musical adapted to the screen under the directorial care of Tom Hooper, who dominated the Oscars a couple of years back with The King's Speech. Opinions on this latest incarnation are likely to vary somewhat, as most already have their favorite version picked out.

The story chronicles the trials of the recently-freed convict Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) as he attempts to put a new life together for himself after nineteen years of imprisonment. After breaking his parole and assuming a new identity, Valjean finds himself hunted by the hawkish Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe). And while Valjean remains the centerpiece of the story, numerous other characters of varying consequence come and go during the film's two-and-a-half-hour-plus run time; such as Fantine (Anne Hathaway), who is forced into a life of prostitution and destitution after losing her job...her daughter Cosette (played by Amanda Seyfried as an adult and Isabelle Allen as a child)...and many others.

THE PROS

Les Misérables is a beautiful piece of cinema. There are occasional presentations of grand spectacle; whether the camera is swooping in past the wreckage of a ship being hauled into dock, descending upon the crowded streets of 19th-century France, or floating into the sky as Valjean tears his papers and casts them into the mountain winds. It's a delicate balance handled appropriately and with breathtaking display. But for the most part, intimate handheld camerawork guides the film. We follow each character around the various set pieces in a way that makes us feel as though we're right there with them. This also allows for a much more visceral and emotionally resonant presentation of the movie's poignant scenes and songs. During several numbers ("Valjean's Soliloquy" and "I Dreamed a Dream" are the first that come to mind) Hooper wisely captures most - if not all - of the performance in a single take. This allows for the scene and the song to gain emotional momentum, and by the time the characters themselves are struggling to sing through their tears we as an audience are struggling with our own tears. It's such a simple approach, but it works wonders for the emotional impact of this movie.

Performances are as satisfying as can be expected from a cast this iconic and renowned. Jackman is well cast as Valjean, as his singing voice is well developed and has already been proven in his previous Broadway excursions. Moreover he's physically imposing enough to convincingly articulate the raw power and strength associated with the character. Russell Crowe's Javert is stern and unflinching, and his voice is good (if not always great) enough to carry the weight of Javert's own personal demons. Anne Hathaway is pitch perfect and develops her character quickly and convincingly during her comparatively brief screen time. And her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" has finally overcome the memory of Susan Boyle's YouTube'd-to-death performance of the same. If Hathaway's delivery doesn't garner at least one or two stray tears, you might need to double check your pulse; it's ineffably beautiful. Another performer who scores major points is Eddie Redmayne, who plays the idealistic revolutionary Marius Pontmercy. I've never given much thought to Redmayne one way or another - but both his acting and especially his singing in Les Misérables are fantastic.

Which brings me to the music itself. The iconic music of this piece is already crystallized in many a fan's mind by the original London Cast recording, and with good reason. I'm certainly not about to argue with the merit of that recording. But personally, I prefer the music of this adaptation. The orchestration is a bit more diverse here, dipping into arrangements that are occasionally more delicate and understated. Hooper also broke tradition with this film in regards to the recording itself. Most film musicals pre-record the song and have the actor's lip-sync on camera, but Les Misérables had the cast record their songs live on set - so the takes you're watching are also the takes you're hearing. This adds an additional layer to the performances, as actors are free to nuance the presentation and let their voices occasionally break or falter as they struggle through the passions sung. It's a seemingly minor detail, but it gives the film an even more inescapable sincerity.

Les Misérables feels very much like a stage musical, and I found that to be a very good thing. There are shifts in the tone of the film that reflect a more organic feel towards the viewing experience. The comic relief provided by Monsieur and Madame Thénardier (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, respectively) almost feels out of place at first because it contrasts so starkly the heavy-handed aesthetic employed up to that point. But as the film continues, all of the pieces coalesce in their proper place and the resulting feel is, as I said, more akin to viewing a stage production than a film.

THE CONS

I mentioned before that the run time is just over two and a half hours. In a musical, that can feel a great deal longer where an entire scene revolves around a single song and moment in the story. This isn't a con per se, but I recommend saving the soft drinks until later if you plan to enjoy Les Misérables to the fullest.

If you don't like musicals to begin with, Les Misérables isn't likely to be your exception. It's as sappy and tear-jerking as any musical I can think of and you could call it heavy-handed without being entirely wrong. I personally love all of these qualities, but if you don't there's little you'll find enjoyable about this film.

And while the following is not directed at the film proper, I've come to find out that (at the moment anyway) the soundtrack for this film is only available as a "Highlights From..." title and doesn't include some of the more iconic pieces such as "Who Am I," "Do You Hear the People Sing," and several others. I hope Universal Republic sees fit to release a full cast recording in the near future as I was completely taken by the orchestration and arrangement. And honestly, how can a highlights album leave out "Do You Hear the People Sing"?

THE VERDICT

It's already begun making the rounds for awards announcements, snagging Golden Globe nominations for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Original Song, and Best Picture. That's little wonder as the movie has all the ear marks of an award-magnet: breathtaking spectacle, stellar performances, and beautiful music. I have to admit that I didn't expect to blown away on the scale that I was by the time the film had concluded, but I'm all the more glad that I was.

Les Misérables (the original musical) has often been described as a "global phenomenon" and "worldwide sensation." I think it's safe to say the film comes about as close as it possibly could to capturing what has given birth to that kind of verbiage. If you're a diehard fan of the musical, this film isn't going to supplant your existing fondness - but I'm certain that it will supplement it. Everything about this film's composition is so lovely to behold, so achingly beautiful and heartfelt, it's impossible to deny its accomplishment. As a film, as a musical, as a piece of art - Les Misérables is an absolute triumph.

Django Unchained

Quentin Tarantino is supposedly in his late 40s. But anyone familiar with his filmography can attest to the fact that he and his movies often evince much more youthful energy. Plastered all over every film he's made is an undeniable and undying love for cinema, and hundreds of references to a myriad of other works are usually embedded in each of his films. As a writer-director, Tarantino has only a handful of works to his name. And while some are more iconic than others, they are all unquestionably his.

As a huge fan of the man and his work, I've been eager to see Django Unchained for quite some time. The movie is a classic revenge movie, with a sufficiently troubling twist: slavery. Django (Jamie Foxx) is recruited by the bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) early on in the movie to aid the latter in finding a trio of outlaws known as the Brittle Brothers. Schultz does not know what they look like, but Django is intimately familiar with their features - as flashbacks reveal them to be the ones responsible for brutalizing him and his wife (Kerry Washington) and ultimately tearing them apart. The two soon become a professional bounty hunting duo and set out to reclaim Django's lost love. But of course this is a Quentin Tarantino film so there's going to be lots of language, lots of quirky dialogue, and lots of blood.

THE PROS

I had the pleasure of reading one of the early drafts of this screenplay some time back when it was posted online. My expectations were only elevated by this read-through, and while some revisions were made to the final product the meat of the story and the narrative was still completely in tact.

Tarantino has referred to Django Unchained in several interviews as a spaghetti western set in the American South, and that's a perfect description of this piece. All of the major genre factors are here: a deadly but accessible protagonist who usually has the perfect one-liner on standby, powerful pathos invoked by the depiction of innocent people being harmed, untamed wilderness captured beautifully on camera, and of course the music of Ennio Morricone. Hints of Quentin's love affair with spaghetti Westerns can be detected in some of his earlier works (most notably in Kill Bill: Vol 2), but in Django Unchained he's pulled out all the stops and is in full fanboy mode.

Performances all around are a real treat. Jamie Foxx develops Django from a bitter but mostly timid former slave into a full-fledged world-weary gunslinger. The transition doesn't take terribly long, but it's masterfully handled and by the time Django puts on his sunglasses (cool factor +100) he's completely believable as an iconic Western hero archetype. Christoph Waltz basically plays Dr. Schultz like he did the other Tarantino role that made him famous with American audiences; Nazi Colonel Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds. But here he's one of the good guys, which makes him that much more entertaining to watch. He's charming and sophisticated, possessed of a wide vocabulary that often stumps his conversational partners, and of course thoroughly German. Leonardo DiCaprio plays plantation owner Calvin Candie, a character as morally decayed as his repulsively mottled teeth. And of course Samuel L. Jackson, who plays Candie's "head house nigger," is simultaneously compelling and frightening.

As you can imagine, any movie about slavery is going to have its fair share of bloody moments. But as I mentioned before, this is a Tarantino-directed movie about slavery so the bloodshed is taken to whole new level here. Many recent films have started replacing in-camera blood squibs with post production pre-rendered "bloodsplosions;" something that often works better depending on the context of the film (Sin City and 300 come to mind). In Django, however, it seems as though Tarantino was intentionally retaliating against that practice. The usual "pop" accompanied by a crimson mist to indicate a bullet wound is here replaced by a sizable burst of red fluid and a small treasure trove of "wet noises" for added effect. Django is easily Tarantino's bloodiest movie next to Kill Bill, but like that film all of the blood and gore is hyperbolic and stylized to emphasize its theatricality rather than its horror. Still, Django Unchained doesn't bother to rein itself in and as a revenge-film that's pretty ideal.

Django Unchained is also, as strange as it might seem, Tarantino's funniest film to date. There are enough laughs peppered throughout its run time that you could call it a comedy without being entirely heretical. It's obviously not a comedy, strictly speaking, but I laughed more often in Django Unchained than I have in many a movie billed exclusively as a comedy. And that goes for the audience in attendance with me.

THE CONS

The drawbacks to this film are largely subjective. If you're easily offended by coarse language and excessive violence, then Django Unchained is not for you. It's also almost 3 hours long; but for me this is a plus because I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and was glad to have so much of it to watch.

As a nitpick, I do have to mention two minor and very stereotypically "me" gripes. First, Tarantino's personal cameo in the film is as an Australian and his accent is pretty bad. It's never really explained why his character is Australian, so the part-British/part-Australian/part-stroke-patient grated on me a bit. Secondly, James Remar plays two characters in the film. I've got nothing against James Remar - he's a fantastic actor - but his first character dies early on and when his second character shows up his costume/makeup isn't strikingly different. It doesn't affect the story at all as neither character gets a great deal of screen time, but it just threw me off.

THE VERDICT

Django Unchained is exactly what I expected it to be: a bold and bloody revenge story accented by classic Tarantino-tropes. One of those tropes is, notably, the use of the word "nigger;" which has been the subject of some controversy. The word is used both as pejorative and as simply part of the parlance of the times depicted. It's an offensive word, undoubtedly. But in Django Unchained it has a place and it fits the film; it would be hypocritical to show slaves getting beaten and branded but then censor the verbiage used to demean them at the same time. I really do not like getting embroiled in race-related controversy, but I appreciate artists and writers who blast right past political correctness and just get to the point, however uncomfortable it may be. Up to this point in time, Dave Chappelle's work was the best example I could think of. But Django Unchained was, for me, a new kind of racial-barrier deconstruction. It was a real treat reveling in the revenge wrought upon slave owners in the film with an audience that was predominantly black.

That's where I think Django could be a watershed moment for racial strife in this country: bringing white and black people together to cheer on the demise of slave owners and racists for roughly 3 hours. Maybe I'm being far too generous with this movie (Spike Lee certainly would say so) regarding its capacity to effect change; time will tell. Either way, Django Unchained is arguably one of Tarantino's best; easily standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Pulp Fiction or Inglourious Basterds in terms of sheer craftsmanship and entertainment value.

There's plenty of offensive content in this movie - from the violence, to the traditional swearing, to the repeated use of the n-word. But I don't think there's anything racially offensive about this movie given the historical context. And if you're a fan of bloody revenge Westerns or of Tarantino in general, you can't afford to miss Django because (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!) it's off the chain.

Redbox Report - December 19, 2012

It's been a couple of months since the last Redbox Report. So before 2012 draws to a complete close, let's get one more batch of reviews in, shall we?


ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER

Many of you may be rolling your eyes at this one already. Hollywood's recent appreciation for B-Grade cinema with a big budget twist is in pretty full swing, and the story of Abe Lincoln's double life as a vampire hunter is just the latest manifestation. Don't expect it to stop here either. Based on Seth Grahame-Smith's book of the same name, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was a movie I was looking forward to seeing - expecting a guilty pleasure with lots of gratuitous violence and high wire cinematography. My expectations were more or less met in that department, but that wasn't quite enough to justify its existence. As I watched this movie, I was just overwhelmed by a complete lack of interest in its contents and spent most of its running time trying to figure out why. There's a measure of character development, the acting (while unmemorable) isn't terrible, the writing is far from the worst I've seen; there wasn't any one thing I could pin down as culprit for why this movie wasn't what it so visibly wanted to be. It had everything I expected and was looking for, and Rufus Sewell's turn as the main antagonist - the vampire Adam - was spot on perfect. But the film repeatedly falters and never flies. A handful of the action sequences were marvelously choreographed, and I'm a sucker for Zack Snyder-style ramping and slow-mo. But Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter lacks a definitive quality to its construction, which seemed strange considering the nature of its narrative. You might enjoy this one as a cheap thrill, but little else.

THE CAMPAIGN

Do you like Will Ferrell? People seem to have a pretty solid opinion about the man, one way or another. His brand of silly-yet-raunchy humor can grow tiresome, undoubtedly. But personally I've always been a fan of him and his films, and The Campaign is no exception. The story is simple: Cam Brady (Ferrell) and Marty Huggins (Zach Galiafanakis) are pitted against each other in a small town run for a Congressional position. Cam is the incumbent with the perfectly coiffed hair, while Marty is the idealistic underdog. It's hardly high drama, but it works on multiple levels largely due to the comedic chemistry between Galiafanakis and Ferrell. Anyone familiar with Galiafanakis's work (most specifically Live at the Purple Onion) will recognize Marty Huggins as, for all intents and purposes, "Seth Galiafanakis"; Zach's fictional twin brother and comedic alter ego. There are a number of parallels to be drawn from the film to modern politics as well. Some of these are not the least bit subtle, like Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow as the Motch brothers; a thinly veiled jab at the Koch brothers. Other similarities are slightly more obscure, but the general lampooning of American politics and the influence of corporate funding are woven throughout. Having come out just in time for the 2012 presidential election, The Campaign certainly seemed to be striving for direct correlation. But post-election, the film is still quite funny and had me laughing out loud several times. Not every stab at comedy in this film lands on the funny bone (some of the bathroom humor is both superfluous and uninspired), but all-in-all The Campaign is a pretty solid comedy with some pretty solid commentary and some pretty solid casting.

HOPE SPRINGS

Remember the days when watching certain movies with your parents became an exercise in embarrassment? I can recall vividly watching Braveheart as a youngster and having my parents give me "the glance" that indicated the shutters were to be drawn over my eyes during the main love scene. Regardless of which film it might have been, there were some films you just didn't want to watch with your parents because it got awkward. This is one of those films, but not for any of the reasons above. It's also not really one of those films, I'm just trying to be funny... *crickets chirping*
Hope Springs is the story of Arnold and Kay Soames (Tommy Lee Jones and Meryl Streep, respectively) who, despite - or perhaps because of - decades of marriage, have grown estranged from one another. They haven't slept in the same bed for years, and their empty-nest routine is painfully drab. In an attempt to reignite the flames of their affection, Kay books them a series of appointments with a marriage counselor (Steve Carell) in spite of the protestations of her husband. Located in Hope Springs, a sleepy Maine township, the counseling requires them to make a vacation out of the experience. The film then follows them through the week as they tackle numerous interpersonal issues, the most prominent of which is their sexual hangups. That might sound a bit explicit, and the film is riddled with innuendo and sexual content of one kind or another - though (thankfully) no nudity. But Hope Springs scores on how brilliantly the subject matter is treated. We as an audience might side more with one spouse than the other, but the film is meticulous in charting why they're equally responsible for the marital stagnation. Performances all around are marvelous, as can be expected from a cast as acclaimed and beloved as this. Hope Springs is a fantastic feel-good movie, and one I whole-heartedly recommend. Just be mindful that if you watch this movie in the company of parents roughly the age of the main characters, consider avoiding eye contact.

MEN IN BLACK 3

It's a rare thing to find a three-quel worthy of its predecessors. It's rare enough to find even a sequel that does that. And to that point, Men in Black 2 was hardly worth watching in the first place. So I'll freely admit that I was downright shocked by how much better Men in Black 3 was than both of the movies that came before it. The original was undoubtedly iconic and laid all the necessary framework, but MIB3 capitalized on all the franchise's strengths beautifully. Taking place after the roller coasters of the first two films, MIB3 opens on Agents K and J (Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith, respectively) in a bit of a rut - at least as far as K is concerned. J can tell K has a bur under his saddle - more than usual - but before he can get any answers K uses a time-traveling device to abscond, It's a Wonderful Life-style, leaving behind a world in which he passed away decades earlier. In search of answers, J travels back in time to meet the younger K (played by Josh Brolin) and find out what's going on. The rest of the movie plays out in typical MIB fashion, with a wacky and often macabre sense of humor to guide the principle action. As a time travel movie, MIB3 works quite well. Engaging a little suspension of disbelief of course, I found myself trying to find loopholes in its logic but was pleasantly surprised when none really came to mind. The movie is intriguingly cast, with all the returning members inhabiting roles they clearly enjoy. New cast members include Jemaine Clement as Boris the Animal, an interstellar criminal mastermind. Jemaine's true strength is comedy, so as a diabolical villain he tries to strike a balance between scary and goofy and it doesn't always work. On the plus side, Josh Brolin has always reminded me of a young Tommy Lee Jones so it would have been enough alone to have him cast in that role. But he completely embraces the character and does a pitch-perfect impression of Jones, to the point where I closed my eyes once or twice and couldn't tell the difference between their two voices. The visual effects are also fantastic, as plenty of CGI and in-camera makeup effects flesh out the world of MIB3. If you enjoyed either of the previous movies, you'll likely be adding this to your favorites list. And without any previous knowledge of the series, MIB3 is readily accessible to newcomers as well.

RUBY SPARKS

Love is a tricky thing. Being in a healthy romantic relationship with another person hinges on choice; we want people to be with us because they want to, not because they have to. But I'd be willing to bet we've all quietly thought to ourselves that it would be nice to be able to just make someone else magically think or feel a certain way; it certainly seems much easier and less risky. These themes are embedded in the Pygmalion legend, but explored in intimate detail via Ruby Sparks - a film that takes a few cues from the aforementioned myth. Calvin Wier-Fields (Paul Dano) is a once-successful writer in a bit of a slump. He's already achieved critical acclaim long before the film begins, but we open on him trying to piece together his next big work. A dream serves to ignite his creative spark, and before he knows it he's writing his next bestseller. But by some miracle, Calvin unwittingly manages to manifest the titular character from his book; a red-headed girl named Ruby Sparks. The film follows Calvin and his relationship to Ruby without flashy special effects or the kind of cinematic cliches you might expect from a movie like this. The real meat of the story is distributed through Calvin's obvious emotional deficiencies, and how he uses Ruby to self-medicate. While Ruby's existence is taken literally by the characters in the film, there's more than a measure of symbolism she brings to the story simply by being the girl that Calvin made up. Zoe Kazan (who plays Ruby) wrote the intriguingly nuanced script, and directing duties were handled by husband-and-wife team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Farris; whose other feature film credit is Little Miss Sunshine. Ruby Sparks feels very similar to that film, and not just due to the presence of Paul Dano and DeVotchka's Nick Urata - who provided the score. There's a bittersweet feeling to the whole affair that tenderly, while honestly, reflects the bittersweet qualities of our own lives. I felt a very strong connection to Calvin as a character, and as a result was emotionally invested in this movie throughout. Ruby Sparks is more or less a romantic comedy, but plenty of emotionally dense moments and even rather dark scenes give the film a unique balance. Ruby Sparks is the kind of movie you think you probably have figured out from the get-go, and for all its intelligence it's fairly predictable. But even without any plot-twists, Ruby Sparks might surprise you on more than a few levels.


SEEKING A FRIEND FOR THE END OF THE WORLD

The year 2012 has been the target of apocalyptic predictions for some time now, thanks to misinterpretation and just plain rumor-milling regarding Mayan culture and history. Plenty of films have dealt with the topic of the world's impending doom, but recent years have seen a surge in their number. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World stars Steve Carrell as Dodge Petersen. With an asteroid heading for Earth, the world is slowly devolving into disarray, but Dodge's life hasn't gone off the rails just yet. It isn't long before the chaos and anarchy of the city proves too dangerous, forcing him and his neighbor Penny (Keira Knightley) to flee. They engage in a last minute (pun intended) road trip to deal with the hangups and regrets that have followed them throughout their lives, and predictably form a romantic attachment. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World looks and feels like a comedy...most of the time. Steve Carrell's involvement implies a comedic vibe, and there are a handful of funny moments throughout. But several rather jarring shifts in tone give the movie a bit of an uneven feel. Knightley is charming and plays her character with an engaging, rather than annoying, free-spiritedness. She's almost a manic-pixie-dream-girl, but she stops just shy of that trope and the movie definitely benefits for it. Where the movie is strong is in its sincerity, as you can readily relate to the character's foibles. And it succeeds in getting you to ask yourself what you might do in a similar situation; where your priorities are and if there are any regrets you don't want to leave this life with. But in attempting to merge a bittersweet sense of comedy with some real soul-searching, Seeking... doesn't quite find what it was looking for. There's a realism to the movie in how society devolves (riots in the streets, people committing suicide, at one point a spontaneous orgy that the main character narrowly manage to evade) that clashes with its more tender and heartwarming moments. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World isn't terrible, but it badly needed some script revisions. Either going with a purely comedic tone or an intense one, or finding a way to weave the two together a bit more comfortably, would have done wonders for a film which doesn't evince nearly as strong a sense of identity as it could have. Still, Carrell and Knightley have some wonderful onscreen chemistry and - if nothing else - the movie is worth seeing for them alone.


YOUR SISTER'S SISTER 

I like how comedy has evolved in the past decade or so. Thanks in part to the work of people like Judd Apatow and Mark Duplass, comedies of late are often a bit more bittersweet and honest than before. There's less staging, oftentimes dialogue is improvised, and on the whole these movies feel a lot more true-to-life. Such is the case with Your Sister's Sister, a movie about a guy named Jack (Mark Duplass) who is spiraling a bit in his personal life a year after the death of his brother. His best friend Iris (Emily Blunt) recommends he take a break from everything and visit her family's isolated lakeside cabin for a few days to clear his head. Upon arriving by bicycle in the dead of night, Jack discovers that Iris' sister Hannah (Rosemarie DeWitt) is staying at the cabin - nursing her own emotional wounds after a breakup. The two decide to share a drink and after sufficient inebration sets in, they end up sleeping together. This is further complicated when Iris shows up at the cabin without warning the next day, setting the three up to each confront their relationships with the other. My description of the plot really doesn't do this film any justice, because reading back over it I'm not entirely sure I would see it on my own recommendation. Moreover the sequence of events sounds like the story of a screwball comedy replete with slide-whistle sound effects and jokes in poor taste. But Your Sister's Sister is nothing like that, thanks to the superlative performances from the three leads. It's a slow-going and fairly understated movie, largely character driven and without any flash or flare. But somewhere amidst the improvised dialogue, the handheld camerawork, and the predictable but pleasant acoustic/indie music soundtrack, Your Sister's Sister manages to emerge a moving and engaging film that had me at times laughing, and just as often misting up. The movie navigates through a number of interpersonal difficulties without flinching, and you'll likely shift in your chair once or twice at the recollection of your own familiarity with the relationships depicted. But Your Sister's Sister is ultimately a very uplifting film and one that truly surprised me with its depth and resonance.