"The 'D' is Silent, Hillbilly": Review of DJANGO UNCHAINED

The quote I chose for the title of this week's review is nonchalantly uttered about 3/4 of the way through the film by Jamie Foxx as he shoots a particularly nasty plantation worker repeatedly amid various shrieks and moans. It's just one of the many hilarious things about Quentin Tarantino's (PULP FICTION, RESERVOIR DOGS, like you weren't aware) newest film, DJANGO UNCHAINED. It also has the distinction of being one of the only subtle things about this blaxploitation spaghetti western.

Set two years before the Civil War in various southern states (primarily Texas and Mississippi), DJANGO UNCHAINED tells the story of a slave (Foxx) who is recruited by a German dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz of INGLORIOUS BASTERDS fame), to help identify three of the good doctor's targets. After seeing that this slave actually might have some talent for this stuff, "The kid's a natural," Dr. Schultz agrees to help Django rescue his wife, Broomhilda, from a dastardly plantation known as Candyland in exchange for Django's services through the winter. 

Like I said earlier, nothing about this film is subtle -- and it's wonderful. While the film is called DJANGO UNCHAINED, the titular character could easily replaced with "Tarantino." Sure, the director of PULP FICTION and KILL BILL has never really been one for downplaying things, but with this film no stone is left unturned (or shot, or exploded, or ripped apart and eaten by dogs). This is Tarantino unleashed (much like those dogs from earlier) and the film is savagely violent, insanely extravagant, and most of all exorbitantly entertaining. 

Many critics and casual movie-goers alike have criticized the film for its extreme violence and pervasive use of a certain racial epithet beginning with the letter "n." Takes like this, much like that of long-time Tarantino hater, Spike Lee, make me wonder if these people have actually seen the film (Spike Lee has admittedly not). Are they wrong? Of course not, DJANGO has all of these things in spades. But does this do anything but add to the atmosphere and overall message? Absolutely not. Apart from providing historical accuracy (yes, slave owners were horrible people and they used that word... a lot), the sheer absurdity that the film portrays in its violence is a remarkably poignant and effecting commentary on the outright lunacy of racism and the stomach-churning horrors of slavery. 

What's more amazing is the fact that Tarantino manages to do all of this while creating one of the most uproariously funny films of the year. With every actor on top of their games (Foxx, DiCaprio and Waltz obviously deserving particular acknowledgment), including quick and rib-splitting turns by Jonah Hill (SUPERBAD, 21 JUMP STREET) and Don Johnson (MIAMI VICE) as dim-witted KKK members, Tarantino's script pops and sizzles with with the wit and obscure pop-culture references that have made him one of the best living directors. His soundtrack, which combines songs from classic Italian spaghetti westerns and modern day rap music, is just another example of how this movie sounds ridiculous written out but works beautifully. Even when he's telling a story about the sickening brutality of slavery, Tarantino can't help but entertain. Never once did I think a movie about a slave and a German bounty hunter killing dozens of people to collect bounties and then rising up against an insanely cruel plantation owner to rescue the slave's abused wife would be the funniest film of the year, but it is -- by far. 

Granted the film is not perfect. Kerry Washington as Django's wife, Broomhilda, does little besides stand around in random fields during Django's hallucinations and get abused physically and emotionally. I get that women had little to no power during this time and women that also happened to be black and enslaved had even less, but it's Kerry Washington! Give her SOMETHING! In addition, the Norse mythological elements also feel just sort of shoved in to a picture that doesn't really need them. Why does Broomhilda speak German? Well, if she didn't then Tarantino's attempt to add a Siegfried and Brunhilde narrative into his story would be impossible and then how could he show the ironic parallel between Candyland and Valhalla? It doesn't serve any real purpose other than that endgame parallel and does nothing but take away from the already amazing Candyland portion of the film, including DiCaprio's menacing and deliciously evil Calvin J. Candie and the true runner of the house, Stephen, a faithful and shrewd house slave played by Samuel L. Jackson, who clearly relished the role and couldn't have played the character more perfectly. The film also has not one, but two over-the-top end sequences where all hell breaks loose. Both are works of bloody and explosive brilliance, but during the gap between the two, the film lags a bit. It's a long movie (near 3 hours), and while the film's length is not a downside like the recently released AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY and while I was more than willing to stay in this world as long as possible, the film does lose energy on its way to the final showdown.

DJANGO UNCHAINED, however, is a seriously insane comedy that is also an insanely serious disquisition on enslavement and how it has been portrayed by Hollywood over the past decades. With its superb cast, brilliant script, eclectic soundtrack, countless references, and beautiful cinematography by Tarantino regular, Robert Richardson, DJANGO UNCHAINED is a film that challenges audiences and is as hilarious as it is entertaining. It's also one of the best films of the year. If DJANGO UNCHAINED had your curiosity, it should now have your attention.

9 out of 10 

A Guy Who Has Never Seen a Full Episode of Any STAR TREK Series Reviews J.J. Abrams's STAR TREK

Recently the first trailer for J.J. Abrams's newest film (and one of the most ludacriously named films in history), STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS came out and I was all, "Hey, that looks pretty awesome! Hey, Benedict Cumberbatch! Awesome!" But admittedly I know very little about the STAR TREK universe and had never seen Abrams's first film. Needless to say, when I recently saw the three disc collectors edition for cheap at my local f.y.e., I jumped on it. And even more recently I actually watched it. And since it's a movie, here are my thoughts on it: 

It's interesting to come to a film with an already dedicated fanbase and not be a part of that fanbase. I love STAR WARS, I love LORD OF THE RINGS, and I especially loved comic book movies. But STAR TREK was something different altogether. "I don't know these characters! I don't know their backstories! What's going on!?!" Actually, I did know these characters... sort of. All I really had to go on was their names and their general attitudes/personalities. And did this ever work against me. What I never noticed in any of the movies from the franchises I listed above was the blatant pandering to fanboys and girls. "What should we name him?" Jennifer Morrison playing Captain Kirk's mother says to Chris Hemsworth (Kirk's father) as he pilots his ship to its demise. They proceed to have a touching moment where we learn that he was named after his paternal and maternal grandparents. What should have been one of the most heartwrenching moments of the film was instead filled with  valley girl eye-rolling and scoffing. And it doesn't stop there. Throughout he film we see various characters revealing themselves in ways that feel like terribly unnecessary pandering. It's an interesting element that made me wonder about other "geek franchises" and whether or not they also employ similar tactics. Though I did recently watched THE AVENGERS which is noticeably devoid of such moments. Could it be a product of the fact that one film is written by Kurtzman and Orci while the other was written by Joss Whedon? Probably. 

Apart from that though, the film is pretty fantastic! Let's get the stuff you could already assume right away: For one, the film is gorgeous. The colors and angles Abrams's makes use of through the film are breathtaking (apart from an egregious use of lens flares that I'll get to later). Taking place nearly 100% in space, the environment Abrams's and his DP Daniel Mindel (who does a lot of work for Ridley and Tony Scott -- commonly known as visual directors) feels real enough while still having that air of "Wow! Why don't we have that stuff yet!?" Obviously I'm not sure how the original series with Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner looked, but the set designs seems like, especially when it comes to the U.S.S. Enterprise, something that could have just been an updated version of what they had back then. For two, the villain is pretty great. A nearly unrecognizable Eric Bana plays Nero, a Romulan (which may or may not be the race of creatures that Mitt comes from) who vows to take revenge on Spock and all man and Vulcankind after the former was unable to save Nero's homeplanet from being destroyed. One of the scenes I am most familiar with from the original series is one in which Shatner battles (if you can call it that) what is clearly a slightly pudgy man in a green alien (if you can call it that) upon a rocky, barren planet. It's wonderful in the saddest way possible. Thankfully, a sadness filled Shatner fist-fight this movie is not. The warfare between Nero and Spock and his constituents is more a psychological one, Nero waging war with actions that are physically devastating but even more so emotionally scarring. 

That's probably what I like most about STAR TREK. From what I can gather, the series have always had a hint (a dash, a cup, or a gallon) of kitsch and camp. It's, like with DOCTOR WHO, what makes it great! It's an aspect I love in almost everything and the balance Abrams is able to strike between sci-fi camp and serious drama is perfect. I wasn't exactly sure what I was expecting, all I know is that I wasn't expecting the movie to be as funny as it was. I was aware that the character Scotty (played by the magnificently cast Simon Pegg) was always, at least for my money, a constant source of comedy with his, "I'm givin' her all she's got Cap'n!" or his "I cannot do that Cap'n!" I wasn't aware, however, of the character of James Tiberius Kirk. 

Captain Kirk (played by the ever charming Chris Pine who must take after his even charming-er on-screen dad, Chris Hemsworth) is imbued with the perfect ratio of rebellious, outside-the-lines cocky jokester and serious, "I actually know what I'm doing" skill. It's something the film shows us has been with him from an early age, stealing his uncle's vintage convertible and taking for a test spin off the side of a cliff, and it is particularly brought to life in his interactions with Spock (played by Zachary Quinto). While I'm not sure how STAR TREK fans felt about the casting, Quinto's Spock was everything I wanted from the character. He has the steely, emotionless demeanor in front of his superiors and his crew, but we also get to see how he was bullied as a child for having a human mother. The way the film plays upon this idea of his human-side being a hindrance versus an actual benefit is one of my favorite aspects of the movie. He is constantly stuck in this dichotomy of having to be and act like that a Vulcan is supposed to be and act like while still trying to deal with some of the hardest and most joyfullest things a person can go through -- losing one's mother and finding true love. 

Both Spock and Kirk are struggling with two separate halves of themselves. It makes them incredible deep and complex characters and infuses their interactions with palpable magnetism. Whenever the two are together, everything else vanishes. It is only these two men (well, a man and a half-man) as they war with each other while another war is raging inside themselves. It's to Abrams's everlasting credit that he is able to create such fully fleshed out stories for his main characters. Even though I knew little about any of these characters, other than the things everyone knows them for, as the credits were rolling I felt as if I had an intimate knowledge of what made each of these unique and interesting people tick (obviously apart from some of the more minor characters, who I would've liked to have seen more of but understand why that wasn't possible). 

And while we're on the topic of the story, let me again praise (I know I'm doing a ton of this) Abrams (and begrudgingly Kurtzman and Orci) for how they justified this completely new take on the classic STAR TREK. The alternate universe plot device is so simple and so perfect that it just left me saying, "Well, of course it's an alternate universe. How could it be anything else?" Inevitably when Hollywood decides to reboot a franchise, there will always naysayers who question why it's happening, why we need new stories and new actors playing characters that are so identifiable with the actors playing them. I mean, years after STAR TREK it was not William Shatner playing T. J. Hooker, it was Captain Kirk, beamed down to be a police officer for a while. "SH!T MY DAD SAYS? More like SH!T CAPTAIN KIRK SAYS, amiright?!" But by not only writing in an alternate universe plot that plays perfectly into the story they're trying to tell and feels perfectly believable in this world, Abrams and company erase all that. These aren't the crew you knew from long ago. This isn't your U.S.S. Enterprise. This is a whole new world. Plus, it allows for splendidly portrayed interactions with Enterprise crew old and new -- and Leonard Nimoy is spectacular. Though his dialogue is filled with many pander-quotes, his conversations with Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock are some of the best scenes in the movie that really help build Kirk and Spock's relationship into what it will ultimately be with Shatner and Nimoy. Plus he has one of the most hilarious long-running jokes where he plays on the classically held sci-fi nerd believes that meeting your future self will cause some space-time continuum-ripping paradox that would destroy the universe as we know it. It's those subtle moments of genre subverting humor that really set STAR TREK apart from its predecessors. 

Although the film is pretty fantastic, I do have one final quibble with it. The lens flares. Good god, the lens flares. For those of you who don't know, a lens flare is when light is shined directly into the camera lens modifying the image in a variety of ways and patterns. Now, don't get me wrong, lens flares can and have been used to great dramatic effect and can create a sense of realism -- giving the image a quality of being an unedited and original depiction of actual events. In the case of STAR TREK, however, J.J. Abrams goes off the deep end. In nearly every single scene of the film there is at least one intruding lens flare. While Abrams has gone record as saying that he used these flares to create a unique visual system as well as to hide some of the more CGI elements of the film. And while I can see that, Abrams also admits that he watches the film sometimes and in some scenes says to himself, "Oh that's ridiculous. That was too many" and that I can see even more. The unique visual system creates ends up being more distracting and eventually maddening than anything. Many times I found myself getting completely immersed in a scene only to have the movie slap me out of it like Cher in MOONSTRUCK with a particularly egregious lens flare. The same thing happens again in Abrams's last film, SUPER 8. I don't know why he has such an obsession with these flares, but from me to you, J.J. -- Notch it back, chief. 

All in all, though, J.J. Abrams's STAR TREK is absolutely fantastic. It reboots a beloved franchise in a way that I have never seen done before and it does it amazingly well. The possibilities that the film opens up for future movies in endless. Not only can they do a riff on literally any story that has ever been done in the STAR TREK universe, they are also able to, as Fleetwood Mac might say, go their own way and create new and exciting stories for grizzled fanboys/girls and newcomers like me alike because of sweet, sweet alternate universes. They also are left in the enviable position of being able to write a part for any of the stars of the 60s series (and perhaps the other series? I don't know exactly how the universes of NEXT GENERATION and the other series work) with relative ease, though if this happens I hope they find other creative methods to do instead of rehashing the black hole plot line. Perhaps the greatest compliment I can pay to Abrams's film is that it made me a fan of not only the movie, but of the idea of STAR TREK. It made me want to do back and connect the proverbial dots. It made me want to find out if and how this story connects to the overarching plot of this unknown franchise. It made me want to boldly go where I have never gone before. 

9 out of 10

Back Again: Review of THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

On Thursday night I was lying in bed, jealously reading all the Facebook statuses of my friends either on their way or already in the theater to see Peter Jackson's latest trip to Middle Earth, THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY. "Well," I thought," at least I'll get to see all their review updates tomorrow morning!" I was excited at the prospect of having some of my trepidation about the film quelled by what I hoped to be singing praises and much rejoicing. However, what I woke up to was nothing of the sort. 

What greeted me as I logged on mere hours before Elizabeth and I were about to make the journey to Huntington for a day of shopping and movie-going, was instead a resounding silence. I looked and looked, but none of my friends who were so jubilant about seeing the film at midnight had posted any reaction statuses. "Oh, God," I though to myself, "My worst fears have been realized! It must be a tragedy of a film!" But I am a hardy cinema-goer and on Elizabeth and I marched to Huntington, me trying to keep my excitement up despite the extreme nervousness I felt that my return to Middle Earth might be a treacherous one.

For those of you not familiar, Peter Jackson's eventual trilogy of films, THE HOBBIT, is an adapation of J. R. R. Tolkien's 1937 fantasy children's novel of the same title. It tells the story of a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins who is recruited by the wizard Gandalf the Grey to assist (and share in the treasure should they be successful) in helping a group of dwarves led by King Thorin Oakenshield to retake the dwarf city of Erebor and the treasure guarded there by the usurper and malevolent dragon, Smaug. 

Leaving the film I was relieved that the echoing silence of Facebook feedback was just a fluke. Though the film was not as good as I had hoped, it wasn't as bad as I feared. All of the actors embody their characters perfectly with particular note going to Martin Freeman's Bilbo being both nervous and courageous, serious and funny -- his talent for mannerisms used to its utmost potential. The dwarves also collectively and effectively translate and further the humor that Gimli brought to the three LORD OF THE RINGS films (one of my favorite touches) and the film as a whole (like the book) is much more fun and lighthearted than the more serious LORD OF THE RINGS and had me openly chuckling throughout. That being said, for the most part the film also manages to capture the most intense moments appropriately -- perhaps the most noteworthy example being the handling of the dwarves essential homelessness. 

The film also reinforces Peter Jackson's status as technical wizard. Though we were regrettably unable to see the film in 48 fps, we did see it in 3D (getting Elizabeth to agree to it was no small feat). That being said, the film has some of the best and subtle uses of 3D I've seen in quite some time and I can only imagine what they would be like with a higher frame rate. Also, though the film has a much higher quantity of CGI landscapes and effects, Jackson does not shy away from them. In one particular instance with the Goblin King, the camera lingers on a closeup of the disgusting visage of the festering ruler. Jackson wants you to see every boil and pustular, scar and pock mark. And it looks frighteningly and nauseatingly gorgeous and realistic. There are a few scenes with landscapes that appear flat and lifeless, but for the most part all of the myth and wonder is there (complete with another wonderful score by Howard Shore).

That being said, this film is no LORD OF THE RINGS. Going in, I (as most people did) knew that Jackson's task would be a difficult one. When THE HOBBIT was originally two films it seemed more manageable. However, when Jackson changed it to construct another trilogy, it worried many people. A trilogy for LORD OF THE RINGS made sense. Three films for three books. Even I can do that math! THE HOBBIT, on the other hand, is one book and is shorter than any of the LORD OF THE RINGS books. Attempting to stretch that amount of material across three films is nearly impossible. And you really feel it. At almost 3 hours, the runtime for AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY is nearly unforgivable. Though I (who am fairly well versed in the lore) and Elizabeth (who is not) felt that what was presented was enough to keep the audience interested for the most part, little happens. The film is (as it has to be) mostly exposition. And when it is not setting up what will occur later in the story, it reverts to a pattern of brief fight, run away, brief fight, run away. Lather, rinse and repeat. 

Many things could have easily been cut from the film and it would have not only been stronger, it would have accomplished the same purpose in far less time. At one point I had to run to the restroom and chose a particularly uninteresting (to me) scene between Gandalf and Saruman. When I returned a few minutes later, the two were still talking and remained talking for what seemed like a while after. Nothing in this film is quick or concise. Even down to the names. It is always Thorin, son of Thrain, son of Thror, King Under the Mountain, which is interesting the first couple of times, but at a certain point the lineage is established. And although I am not necessarily complaining as he was one of the better parts of the film, adding elements from the SILMARILLION (in this case a story arc with Radagast the Brown) though fun, seem like padding more than anything else. 

All of this being said, I think it's important to note the one thing that the film did that I believe is its strongest point. Earlier yesterday, an indescribably horrible tragedy occurred in Connecticut. No matter whether you were connected directly to the event or not, it made you think and reconsider what kind of world we live in and it really affected both Elizabeth and I throughout the day. However, for the 169 minutes that I sat in the theater in Huntington, WV, I wasn't in the United States. I didn't have to deal with tragedies or ask any deep and unnerving questions about my fellow men. No, for 169 minutes I was in Middle Earth, watching a group of dwarves and a hobbit and a wizard that I know all too well. For 169 minutes I was with them as they banded together, supported one another, and fought the forces of evil. And for 169 minutes I got to witness the start of a journey that will span the next three years of my life. It's a world where good inevitably triumphs over evil. Where even the smallest of creatures can makes an enormous difference. Despite the problems it may have, Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY does what makes cinema one of the major loves of my life. And it did it at a time I needed it most. 

7 out of 10

It's Always Mental in Philadelphia: Review of SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

The first thing that popped into my mind after the leaving the cinema having just watched David O. Russell's newest film, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, was, "Wow, that has got to be one of the worst movie names in a long, long time!" And it's true, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is such a frustratingly awkward and textually insignificant title that it makes me a little crazy. Which, appropriately enough, is kind of what BOOK THAT COACHES USE TO HOLD ALL THEIR TEAMS FORMATIONS AND MOVEMENTS THAT HAPPENS TO HAVE AN INNER COATING OF ARGENTUM 47 is all about. 

The film tells the story of Pat (Bradley Cooper) a substitute history teacher from Philadelphia who has spent the last 8 months in a mental institution after finding his wife Nikki in the shower with another history teacher at their school and subsequently beating him into oblivion to Stevie Wonder's MY CHERIE AMOUR. Turns out Pat has bi-polar disorder and after 8 months he is released into the custody of his parents (Jackie Weaver and Robert De Niro). 

After arriving home, Pat commits to getting fit and reading books from Nikki's syllabus in an attempt to win her back. Needless to say, he has trouble adjusting. He rages at his parents, he rages at his doctor, he even rages at Ernest Hemingway for writing such depressing endings (a mode the film does not emulate)! That is until he meets his best friend Ronnie's wife's sister Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence). Tiffany is a young, sultry, and equally screwed up individual who just recently lost her police officer husband. The two immediately clash due to their direct and inappropriate personalities. However, as time progresses they realize how they can be mutually beneficial to one another. Tiffany can get a letter from Pat to Nikki so that he can begin trying to piece his marriage back together without having to worry about that silly restraining order. Tiffany, on the other hand, needs a dance partner for this couples event and who better to get as a partner than this bi-polar fella with no filter and a Narcissus Complex?! Hey, at least you know he's been working out! 

This film is not the significant diversion from the classic romantic comedy that David O. Russell and all the advertising and publicity would have you believe. It is, however, a pretty good film. Despite having most of the same contrived plot points and predictable action as other romcoms, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK does the one thing that romantic comedies have to do right really well -- the chemistry between the two leads. Despite the rather large gap between ages (Cooper being 36 at the time of shooting, Lawrence 21), the relationship between the two works much better than it should. This is most likely a product of the Jennifer Lawrence's acting chops. Although Cooper is good, he ends up playing the the kind of arrogant narcissist character that he seems to play in all the comedies he stars in (more on this later). Lawrence on the other hand continues to show that she is one of the most talented actresses of our generation. With this role she completely melts all thoughts of Katniss Everdeen away from her persona and it's often hard to even fathom that the two characters are played by the same actress. It may be (it is) too early to say this, but given her natural ability (She has had zero professional training) it is possible to see her as our generation's Meryl Streep. She is that good. 

Speaking of good acting, there is so much of it in this movie! Chris Tucker is incredibly funny in a rare, relatively subdued performance, as is John Ortiz as Pat's internally raging best-friend. But the most pleasant surprise (and perhaps my favorite thing in the film) is the reemergence of Robert De Niro. For so many years he has settled on roles in which is plays basically a parody of himself. Here, however, as Pat's OCD-affected father he shows why people consider he is one of the greatest living actors, and it's wonderful to see him finally again in a role that he actually cares about. 

All in all, the film is a good one. The acting is great, the music which combines a Danny Elfman score with classic rock is pitch perfect as is the norm with  Elfman, and the cinematography is amazing. The way O. Russell moves the camera really reflects his work on THE FIGHTER. As Pat's family verbally spars with one another, the camera bobs and weaves between them, getting close, sweeping around, pulling back, and moving back in again. It gives each altercation the feel of a boxing match and really adds intensity to an otherwise really funny film. 

But while the film is really well done, it's not the something special that it would like to be. Looking through David O. Russell's filmography (and his life in general), it's clear he's really interested in two things -- fighting and mental illness. And while SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK does the former really well, the latter is more problematic. While the mental illness of Pat, his father, and Tiffany is billed as a big plot point and major crux of the film, it quickly fades into the background. After the 30 minutes or so, Pat becomes less of a tortured soul, and more of just another cocky asshole trying to get his wife back (I told you I'd get back to it!). It becomes clear that instead of actually creating a romantic comedy that deals with this really dark subject, SILVER LININGS simply uses the mental illness as the way to get Pat and Tiffany together (Look, they're both mentally ill! It's a perfect match!). 

But despite its problems, including tonal problems and extremely contrived drama and a gambling/sports fan plot that only ends of being really confusing (and, in the case of the gambling, a completely incorrect depiction of how things actually work), it's still a well done romantic comedy. Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence have amazing chemistry and the supporting cast is filled with strong actors who are all amazing in their own right. I was just expecting something more innovative and fresh, something more risky.

And a better title. I would have really liked a better title.

7.5 out of 10

...Que?: Thoughts on Pedro Almodovar's THE SKIN I LIVE IN

I have been wanting to see Pedro Almodovar's THE SKIN I LIVE IN (2011) for a while now. So, when to my great surprise, I saw that it was on BritFlix I jumped on the chance. For those of you who don't know, THE SKIN I LIVE IN is a Spanish psychological thriller about a doctor (Antonio Banderas) who creates an artificial skin that is immune to burning and insect bites and is much tougher than normal human skin (because apparently pig skin is much more sturdy...makes sense!). 

What proceeds is a series of events, told in the present, six years in the past, and all the time in between, that continue to get weirder and weirder and more and more confusing. There is random, drug-addled rape, torture, forced sex changes, a creepy sexual-deviant dressed as a tiger who ties up and gags his mother, suicide and copy-cat suicide, mental illness, AND at least 5 minutes of just a close up of a gap-toothed singer crooning Spanish easy-listening. 

Don't get me wrong, THE SKIN I LIVE IN is impeccably shot. The use of light and shadow is superb, reflecting the artfulness for which Almodovar has become famous. And, although some performances border on melodramatic/Spanish tele-novella, most of the actors (especially Banderas) are pretty superb. Unfortunately, none of it matters BECAUSE NOTHING MAKES ANY SENSE! Not a single character's motivation (barring the leading lady Elena Anaya) has any explanation or justification. Why is Antonio Banderas having sex with this person when all the preceding events would suggest he should just use one of his seemingly three thousand pistols throughout the house and put and end to his troubles and his strange bedfellow? What is the the point of a random tiger-man harassing the people in Antonio Banderas' house when it leads nowhere and adds nothing to the movie? And why on Earth does it matter that what Banderas is doing in his secret but not-so-secret underground hospital is illegal when clearly everyone knows he's doing it but never say anything? 

Basically what I'm saying is that THE SKIN I LIVE IN is a really beautiful and well composed movie that is infuriating because it makes about as much sense as (MAJOR SPOILERS) kidnapping the man who, in a drugged-out stupor, raped your mentally unstable daughter who, for some reason, was allowed to be at a party, taking pills and drinking excessively, when she was clearly still suffering from the effects of seeing her mother kill herself, chloroforming said man and strapping him to an operation table, surgically transforming him into a woman over an undisclosed amount of time, grafting pig-harvested super-skin onto his/her body, AND THEN USING SAID MAN/WOMAN AS YOUR MISTRESS!! 

But hey, maybe I just lost something in translation, right?  

Argo Watch This Movie: Review of Ben Affleck's ARGO

Puns are great. I like puns, you like puns (unless you're a pinko commie), and apparently movie producers, special effects artists and CIA exfil operatives do too! Throughout ARGO there is a running gag that involves the title of the science-fiction film that CIA specialist Tony Mendes (Ben Affleck) has concocted with Hollywood effects artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and movie producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) as a cover story to help Mendes get six US citizens in hiding out of Iran after Iranian extremists storm the US embassy on November 4th, 1979 in retaliation for the US's sheltering of the recently deposed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. 

If the first part of that paragraph didn't seem to match the second part all that well, don't be alarmed (unless you're into that)! One of the best aspects of Ben Affleck's third feature film (after GONE BABY GONE and THE TOWN) is the way it is able to balance tone. Throughout  it's 2 hour runtime, the film balances itself between being being political thriller, Hollywood satire, and near the end (POSSIBLE SPOILER) almost a heist movie. Having that many different elements may seem like it would make for a very inconsistent and tonally confusing piece of work. But to his immense credit, Affleck is able to walk the tightrope beautifully. Comedic scenes are interplayed with various shots of brutality, but both work to their full potential, never feeling either inappropriate or off-putting.

When the film finally makes it to the final 20 minutes or so and moves into what I would argue is a third film genre, it continues to work beautifully, highlighting another one of the film's strongest suits -- the suspense. The final action set piece of this film is amazingly stressful in all the best ways (if you're a chronic nail-biter like me, wear gloves). Not many films can sustain that level of suspense for the amount of time ARGO does, especially seeing as the audience already knows how this is going to end. Granted there are some shockingly contrived moments that are there only to add additional anxiety, but they're not so egregious that you can't move past them. 

However, this suspense does end with a bit of an anticlimax. Which leads me to my major problem with the film. It feels as if the entire work uses the fact that it's based on a true story as an excuse to play things safe. Although it is filled with awesome moments, it just never feels like it does anything risky. On the same point, trying to stick to the "true" elements, the film doesn't spend as much time as I feel like it should have on certain arcs including those of the six US embassy workers and the story involving John Goodman and Alan Arkin. All of these actors, including "The Danger" Bryan Cranston, are incredibly talented and it's a shame that they aren't featured more.

Most of the film is concerned with Tony Mendes. And this would have been fine, had Ben Affleck not cast himself in the role. I have never really been a fan of Ben (more puns!) as an actor, much preferring his directorial work. Likewise, in this film, though he has the most screen time, he is the dullest of the bunch. Throughout the film he feels like a non-entity, always taking a backseat when on screen with any of the actors mentioned above. There is one scene in particular that is just Affleck in brooding contemplation (one of his specialties) that almost grinds the film to a screeching halt. 

While I really enjoyed it, I don't think ARGO amazing. It plays it too safe too often and seems far too concerned with it's "true story" integrity. I just think if you're going to clearly manipulate events to increase suspense, why not bend the rules a little more? That being said, ARGO is a solid film. It tackles both drama and comedy with remarkably adept skill and handles suspense brilliantly. The Alexandre Desplat score is very well done and combines with the incredible editing and cinematography to create a film that will most certainly be eaten up by Oscar voters (which you can take any way you want). Regardless of whether it does, however, you should still Argo see it. Do it for the puns! 

Hushpuppies and Bathtubs: Review of BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

"There was a girl named Hushpuppy and she once lived with her father in the Bathtub." That sentence probably doesn't mean anything to you if you haven't seen Benh Zeitlin's  BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD (in fact, it probably sounds really creepy). Unfortunately, that feeling you probably have right now is how I felt when I walked out of the film. It just really didn't mean anything to me. 

Written by Zeitlin and Lucy Alibar (and based on a one-act play by Alibar called JUICY AND DELICIOUS), BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD (hereby referred to as BEASTS) is about six-year old Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis) who lives with her short-fuse father Wink (Dwight Henry) in a bayou community on an island surrounded by rising water that the locals refer to as the "Bathtub." As the film progresses, the community must deal with raging storms, massive flooding, and a forced evacuation from the (more well off) people on the other side of the levy. Along the way, deeper struggles occur between Hushpuppy and Wink as the latter tries to prepare the former for an adulthood that might be coming faster than she thinks. 

Don't get me wrong, BEASTS is a very well done film. The script is fantastic with some amazing local dialogue that feels incredibly natural. The acting likewise is stellar. All the supporting cast members feel unique and have very distinct personalities; even the child actors, though not having much to say, do a really good job of being what you'd expect kids living in a place like this to be like. Dwight Henry and newcomer Quvenzhané Wallis are really where the film shines, however. Henry delivers an absolutely knock-out performance as the hot-headed father, trying to be the emotional rock that he thinks his daughter needs him to be while clearly struggling just to keep their lives together. Wallis as Hushpuppy similarly holds her own. Charming beyond words but with a scowl that can stop even the largest beast in its tracks, she brings a palpable energy to the entire work that is truly remarkable for an actor of her age and experience.

And the film is also beautiful! The cinematography by Ben Richardson truly runs the gamut in the course of the film's 90 minutes. Whether it's depicting stagnant, diseased filled water and bloated animal carcasses or indescribably beautiful scenes of celebration (including one moment with sparklers that made me incredibly nostalgic and really jealous), Richardson infuses the film with a look that is both natural and unnatural, creating a space between reality and unreality that blends perfectly with the spirit of the picture. 

Now, undoubtedly you are questioning my sanity at this point, maybe you're even calling me names in your head ("I wish you'd hush...puppy! Zing!"). And if the film did all the things I've mentioned and provided a compelling story with relatable drama then it would arguably be one of the best films of the year. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Every bad thing that happens to the characters in the film is their own fault. The bayou is populated by stubborn and stuck-in-their-ways people who refuse help at every turn, even when it's potentially life-saving (opting instead for the Colonel Sanders method of treatment), they will not leave the Bathtub even when it's clear a major storm is coming and  is going to wash away all their properties, and overall they're just filled with disillusionment. And I might even be able to excuse this if the film made it a point to really touch on why they're actually like this, but it doesn't. 

I really wanted to like this movie; and early on I thought I was going to absolutely love it. But it just wasn't for me. When all the drama in a film is self-inflicted with no real explanation as to why it's this way, I am just left asking for more. The film begins and ends with the same line that I quoted above: "One day, the future scientists will find evidence of a girl named Hushpuppy that once lived with her father in the Bathtub." To which I ask (as I did many, many times throughout the movie), "Why?" 

Bond at 50 is Pure Gold: Review of SKYFALL

In 2006, Martin Campbell's CASINO ROYALE brought James Bond back with a vengeance. Daniel Craig, new to the role, put everyone's fears and apprehensions to bed and brought a much-needed dose of humanity and fallibility to the character. In 2008, Marc Forster followed it up QUANTUM OF SOLACE which was a decent film, but one that took itself way too seriously and didn't really provide the kind of action that fans of the films are used to. And now, in 2012, Sam Mendes (AMERICAN BEAUTY, ROAD TO PERDITION) brings Bond back to the big screen with SKYFALL. 

And IT. IS. AMAZING. I usually try not to utterly gush when reviewing movies on here, but this one deserves it. As an immense James Bond fan, I can easily say that this is the best Bond film to be released in my lifetime. I would almost go so far as to say it might be the best Bond film to be released in anyone's lifetime. As a Bond film, it has every single thing you want and it has them in spades. The action scenes are some of the most beautifully shot (cinematography by the impeccable Roger Deakins) and pulse pounding sequences I've seen in a long while. The score by Thomas Newman is absolutely stellar (including another fantastic credit sequences set to Adele's really well done Shirley Bassey throwback) and acting is superb. 

Daniel Craig finally feels completely at home as Bond and it really shines through with some great little ticks and impeccable timing, while still keeping that humanity he brought to the two films previous. It's clear now how much fun he has playing the role and it is a real privilege to see him do Bond the way he should be done. Albert Finney and Ralph Finnes also show up for brief roles (the latter in a more significant role) and bring their A-game as expected. Ben Whishaw's take on Q is also really spot on (though he does get a few clunker lines throughout) and Dame Judi, at her most Churchillian, is simply stunning. I mean, I know she's Judi Dench and she's amazing but wow does that lady have some major gravitas. 

And then there's Javier Bardem as the platinum blonde, highly eccentric, highly effeminate, highly disturbing Raoul Silva. One of my major complaints with the past two Bond films is that they just didn't have a classic Bond villain to latch onto. Sure, Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre in CASINO ROYALE was fine, but he just never did it for me like Goldfinger, Dr. No or the man himself Ernst Stavro Blofeld. That being said, with Raoul Silva, Javier Bardem has given me exactly what I wanted. He's a Bond villain for the 21st century. Silva is ruthless as hell, supremely intelligent (preferring to do his terrorism with hacks and viruses rather than guns and knives), and has no regard for the well being of himself or anyone around him. What Heath Ledger brought to the Joker, Javier Bardem brings to Bond villains.  He is so incredibly unnerving and yet at other points absolutely heartbreaking. He is just amazing and there is no taking your eyes off him when he's on the screen (especially two sequences in particular that will be etched into my memory forever). 

SKYFALL is amazing. Where CASINO ROYALE breathed new life into the franchise and took Bond to a place he'd never been, SKYFALL takes the classic films and translates them perfectly into the modern age. The locations are GORGEOUS and the action is fantastically riveting. The banter is back to full effect and is some of the best I've heard in a long time (thankfully PUN FREE). Bond has his necessary trysts with a few ladies, but the film handles it in a way that reduces the blatant misogyny to a minimum. And on that note, like all the best Bond films, SKYFALL realizes it's a James Bond movie (like it's predecessor sadly did not) and is actually able to laugh at itself and cause a few laughs while doing it. Sure, there are a few cringe-inducing lines of dialogue but the film knows they're cringey! It's got amazing actors and some subtle and not-so-subtle callbacks, none of which feel like simple pandering to fanboys. The plot is simple, but it's simple in all the best ways. With a Bond film (any action film, honestly) you don't need an intricate plot with lots of twists and turns. You just need some amazing action scenes, a great villain, some heart-racing music, and most of all you need James Bond at his most debonair. And SKYFALL simply has it all. 

He may be 50 years old, but Bond's never looked better. 

Attack of the Killer References: Review of FRANKENWEENIE

So, at this point  it feels like whenever the new Tim Burton movie comes out, anyone who reviews it or writes about it in any scope has to briefly touch on how Burton used to make good movies and how now (brown cow) he just doesn't. So here's me taking care of that: Starting with PEE-WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE in 1985 up until MARS ATTACKS! in 1996, Tim Burton made some really excellent movies. And, apart from BIG FISH in 2003, he hasn't really made a truly good movie since (even though I do have a personal attachment to SLEEPY HOLLOW from all the times I've sleepily, often times medicated, watched it in the middle of the afternoon on Sci-Fi). Now onto FRANKENWEENIE.

A stop motion animation retelling of Burton's 1984 short film of the same name, FRANKENWEENIE tells the story of Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) who's a young kid that loves science, making awesome monster movies, and especially his best friend (and best actor) Sparky the dog. Victor's parents (Catherine O'Hara and Martin Short) love their son, but don't necessarily love that he spends so much of his time in the attic alone. So they make him a deal: join the baseball team and you can participate in the science fair. During his first at-bat, Victor unexpectedly hits a homerun and his ever faithful companion Sparky runs to retrieve his master's ball. Tragically, while bringing the ball back to the park, Sparky is hit by a car and is killed. Victor spends the next few days in a state of depression until his intense and menacing science teacher, Mr. Ryzkruski (otherwise known as "Mr. Rice Krispie" and voiced by Martin Landau), introduces the kids to the idea of electrical shock stimulating even dead tissue. Motivated by grief and longing for his lost companion, Victor attempts to harness the power of lightning to bring Sparky back to life. The experiment is a success! However, Victor quickly finds out that having a reanimated dog isn't as simple as he might have thought, and he has to deal with not only jealous (and incredibly creepy) classmates, but neighbors who would only see Sparky as a monster. 

As much as I really want to say it's a return to from, the closest I can get to is... almost. There are so many things to like about FRANKENWEENIE, however. The voice actors are great and the Danny Elfman score is superb as always. But most of all, no matter how bad a movie Tim Burton makes, he has, for my money, never made a bad looking movie. And FRANKENWEENIE is no exception. Burton's artistic vision puts some people off, but I have always considered it to be amazing to watch. The stop motion animation is always breathtaking, and the character designs are fun, really interesting and all unique (though the Frankenstein family could have used an extra dash of crazy). It's reminiscent of NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS and THE CORPSE BRIDE in all the best ways and served to remind me just how much I love stop motion animation. 

That being said, like Ridley Scott, Tim Burton is a visual artist first and foremost. Unfortunately, what that means is that the narrative often suffers in favor of the overall look of the picture. And though it doesn't suffer from this to a great extent, it's clear that the story was not the most important part of the film. Sure, the story is fine. Nice, quaint little tale about a boy and his love for his dog. There are also TONS of references to classic horror films  and classic horror film actors like Vincent Price and Boris Karloff. And there are also even subtler nods to Rankin/Bass stop motion films of the 60s and 70s, all of which pleased me to no end. That being said, the relationships between parents and their kids, as well as Victor and Mr. Ryzkruski and Elsa van Helsing (Winona Ryder) feel really underdeveloped and the story overall, while being fine, does nothing to establish itself as something truly special. 

And that's how I left the theater feeling. Happy that I watched a Tim Burton movie and didn't have to walk back to my room angry, but sad that it still didn't reestablish him as the overall talent that those movies between PEE-WEE and MARS ATTACKS! showed him to be. But FRANKENWEENIE is a short little piece with countless, fun references that's pretty enjoyable if not a little underwhelming. 

Time Travel Fries Your Brain: Review of LOOPER

Most of the people who will be reading this won't know who Rian Johnson is. But that's not an insult, as I'm sure even people who watch a ton of movies aren't completely sure who Rian Johnson is. Debuting to the public in 2005 with his gritty high school neo-noir, BRICK, Johnson has gone on to direct the 2008 caper film THE BROTHERS BLOOM and two episodes of the best show on television, BREAKING BAD. 

Now, I really enjoyed BRICK and absolutely adore THE BROTHERS BLOOM, but I was unsure if Johnson's style would ever translate into a film that would appeal to mainstream audiences. His films asks a lot from their viewers. You have to not only pay close attention so as to not miss any key elements that are casually mentioned, but his films really make you submit to the world they are presenting in order to get the most out of them. Some people just aren't willing to suspend their disbelief to that extent. 

So, needless to say when I saw that his newest film, LOOPER, about time travel and assassins and delayed suicide was slated to be a major release, I was worried. Luckily for me, with LOOPER, Rian Johnson not only confirms the already known fact that he's an excellent director, but also proves he can do an intelligent, thought provoking, big(ger)-budget action film that doubles as a fantastic popcorn-flick for any casual cinema goer.

LOOPER pretty much has everything you want. The crisp, snappy dialogue that made BRICK so fantastic is here again in full force. The cinematography by Steve Yedlin is impeccably executed, the makeup/prostheses/whatever it was to subtly make Joseph Gordon-Levitt resemble Bruce Willis is really unnerving at first but completely works once you get used to it, and the performances are top notch.

Gordon-Levitt as the younger Joe completely nails the pained look of bewilderment, slouchy walk, and wry smile that made Bruce Willis famous. Willis himself as senior Joe is also fantastic, doing some of the best work he's done in quite a long time and showcasing a wide range of emotion, from snarky superiority to completely devastated sorrow. Even Emily Blunt and the child actor Pierce Gagnon (who is AMAZING in a few scenes) both give top-notch performances with their comparatively small screen time. 

All this being said, however, LOOPER, like all of Johnson's films, is about the story. And the story here is extremely smart, clever, and most importantly fun. Though I won't go deeply into the plot as to keep it as fresh as possible for those of you who haven't seen it (Sorry for how late this review is into its run), it hinges basically on the fact that Loopers are hitmen in the present (the present being 2044) whose only job is to kill people from the future (where time travel has been invented) who are doing the future mob harm. Sometimes, however, the mob wants to "close the loop" and sends back the Looper's future self to be taken out (along with a sweet, sweet 30 year pension in gold). 

While, like most time travel movies, you can't really think too long and hard about the plot for fear of your head exploding, Johnson's narrative makes more sense and holds together better than the greater majority of time travel films out there (an obvious comparison that is even referenced in the film is Nacho Vigalondo's amazing film TIMECRIMES). Granted, like BRICK, it asks you to just accept a lot of elements: the Loopers' blunderbuss, the silver they're paid in, the loops that close and the ones that keep running. But if you just suspend your disbelief long enough, Rian Johnson takes you on a terrific, exciting, often heart-wrenching and terrifying, and extremely intelligent joyride that is a real reprieve from the everyday schlock that seems to haunt cinemas this time of year. 

If you haven't seen it already, to randomly quote Tom Haverford and Donna Meagle: "Treat yo' self." 

Anniversary. 50th Anniversary.

Let's get this out in the open: I'm a pretty big fan of the UK. I love their culture, I love their non-confrontational (for the most part) attitudes, I love their literature, I love their college institutions (big ups to the OX), and I especially love their TV and movies. Sure, you've got THE OFFICE and FAWLTY TOWERS, MONTY PYTHON and everyone loves a certain bespectacled wizard. But for me, two words top all of that. Bond. James Bond. 

Ever since I was quite young, I have been enamored with 007. He was calm, he was cool, he got the girls and most importantly he got all the cool gadgets. He simply radiated the type of guy that a nerdy, overweight kid from Kentucky wanted to be. Could he be a little (perhaps a lottle) misogynistic? Perhaps. But as a kid, I didn't recognize or care about any of that (and as an adult, I can appreciate the intended humor in it). I just wanted to see Bond escape from perilous situations, defeat the baddie, and take a much deserved vacation on the beach until he was called into action again. 

Spanning 22 films (the 23rd, SKYFALL, debuts later this month) and many actors, James Bond has now been leaping off the pages of Ian Fleming's novels and onto the big screen for 50 years. Sean Connery was the first (basically) and brought a rugged manliness to the already debonair secret agent and had always been my favorite iteration of Bond. Roger Moore was the smoothest and arguably the epitome of character (my Mom's favorite). Pierce Brosnan was the deadliest while Timothy Dalton and the other minor actors also brought their own special intricacies and points of view to the character. And the most recent Bond, Daniel Craig, has brought a much needed dose of humanity and vulnerability to the character which has been incredibly refreshing (though more so in CASINO ROYALE than QUANTUM OF SOLACE).

Are all the Bond films great? No. Can you even say all the Bond films are good? Certainly not. But I personally love them. Even if they don't provide you with the best plot or top notch acting and even if they can be rather formulaic, it doesn't matter to me. I watch James Bond films because he has always been the epitome of cool for me. Even when the film is bad, it doesn't matter. Why? Because Bond is Bond regardless. And then sometimes those fantastic opening credits roll and you're serenaded by the sultry Shirley Bassey and the action is pitch perfect with that classic Monty Norman score and the villain has all the right sinister touches and it comes together perfectly to create a one of a kind immersion that cannot be beat. And at the center is still Bond. James Bond. Cool as ever after 50 years and 22 films. Happy Birthday, Mr. Bond. 

"What Did You Put in This?": Review of THE MASTER

As most of you know, I'm in Oxford study at one of the colleges that make up Oxford University. As such, my ability to complete PTA Fest 2012 was a bust (I will pick up the remaining films once I return to the States and to my dvd collection). That being said, I did get to watch Anderson's newest feature, THE MASTER. 

Starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix, THE MASTER tells the story of Freddie Quell (Phoenix), an alcoholic World War II navy veteran with post traumatic stress disorder, and his struggles to adjust to postwar society. Eventually he meets the mysterious author, doctor, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher, man, and leader of a philosophical movement known simply as The Cause, Lancaster Dodd, an inevitably change each other's lives forever. 

Now, if that seems like a vague, almost rudimentary plot, that's because it kind of is. And that's okay, because the plot of the film has to take a back seat in order to tackle the two most important elements of the work, those being the two main characters. Freddi Quell and Lancaster Dodd are two sides of the same coin. Both so completely different, but on such a scale that it makes them almost the same person. Freddie Quell is controlled exclusively by his Id. Whether it be drinking fuel from a bomb on a battleship or attempting to have sex with everyone women he comes in contact with, no matter how old or young, big or small, his only need is to satisfy the animalistic nature inside him. Lancaster Dodd on the otherhand is completely controlled by his Ego. Unable to take criticism or questioning without becoming defensive to the point of verbal, and near physical abuse, his need to be the smartest person in the room, to be the center of attention and the man with all the answers controls his every whim. 

But both men are so controlled by these opposite parts of the human psyche that they are unable to change, whatsoever. Even though Lancaster takes Freddie under his wing, by the end Freddie is in the exact same dark place that he was when he originally got off the boat. And Lancaster, through all his trials and tribulations, though seeing first hand the inability of his philosophy to really change anyone, continues to speechify and profess the great powers that come from reading his work. 

As such, THE MASTER becomes a fascinating look into the human psyche, the powers of cult-like organizations, the master and disciple dynamics, the idea of how perhaps who we are at our core is unchangeable even if we sincerely believe we want to change, and the overall American personality. It's an incredibly ambitious, breathtakingly gorgeous (I can't imagine what it looks like in 70mm) film with an amazing score (by Jonny Greenwood) and two of the best performances by leading actors that I've seen in quite sometime. Admittedly it's not for everyone. And if you don't invest deeply in the two characters then the film could probably begin  to feel like quite a slog. It's purposefully opaque and mysterious, and the performances (and the film as a whole) are incredibly unnerving, but in the best way possible. It's not my favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film of all time (that's not a knock at all), but it is most certainly a worthy addition into the portfolio of one of the most gifted and important filmmakers in America today. 

Can I Buy You a Cup of Coffee?: Thoughts on HARD EIGHT

So, I was hoping this event would start a lot sooner and that I could complete it a lot faster than it appears is possible. At this point, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to actually watch all 6 movies and give my thoughts on them before I leave the country, but I'll get as many as I can done (THE MASTER is the only other I know for sure). That being said, I did get to watch Anderson's first ever feature film, HARD EIGHT. 

And it's an interesting little film. Made in 1996, it tells the story of John (John C. Reilly), a down on his luck schlub sitting outside of a diner who is confronted by a mysterious, middle-aged stranger offering to him a cigarette and to buy him a cup of coffee. As we come to find out, the stranger is Sydney (Phillip Baker Hall), a professional gambler, who asks John what he would do if he were to be given 50 dollars. Turns out John is just looking to make 6000 dollars to pay for his mother's funeral. Though Sydney says it won't net him the 6 grand, he offers to show John a few tricks that might net him a room and some food. John obliges and they set off for Vegas. 

When you compare HARD EIGHT to some of Anderson's later work, it seems much smaller in scale, story and it's overall ambition (that's not a knock). The 20 minute prologue (stated above) takes place 2 years before everything else and is remarkably subdued. It's pretty much exactly what I've described, two men sitting in a diner and talking about themselves and what the future might hold. And even when the film picks up after the introduction of Gwyneth Paltrow's (dimwitted waitress and occasional prostitute, Clementine) and Samuel L. Jackson's (sleazy "security guard" for a local casino, Jimmy), it is still very intimate. But I think that's the point. I don't think it is surprising that Anderson chose Reno for his setting instead of opting for the larger, more glitzy Las Vegas. 

Like other PTA films that would follow, HARD EIGHT isn't really about the plot per se. It's about the characters. Paul Thomas Anderson cares immensely about his characters; perhaps more than any other director working today. Every single character in his films is treated with respect in the way he or she is presented. It doesn't hurt when you have actors like Phillip Seymour Hoffman who can come in and do a quick 2 minute bit part, but with the attention Anderson pays to his characters, it would be this way no matter who was playing them (Kristen Stewart and Cody Horn notwithstanding). But as superb as the minor cast is, it's the film's stars who really deserve the attention.

All four of the main actors give amazing performances. Gwyneth Paltrow is great, as is Sam Jackson. But those two are also only supporting characters. The core of HARD EIGHT (and the main reason to see it), however, is the dynamic relationship between John C. Reilly and Phillip Baker Hall. Hall as the titular character (the film is also known as SYDNEY is some areas) is especially noteworthy. Played pitch-perfectly, Sydney exudes an old school confidence and his assured manner and calmness in all situations makes it easy to see why John looks up to him, wants to be just like him. But it's not long before we start seeing the deep-seated desperation and loneliness eating away at Sydney. Phillip Baker Hall portrays this subtlety through a carefully modulated performance that is masterful and is the main thing that sticks with you once the credits roll. 

HARD EIGHT is not Anderson's best, not that that's something you should expect from a director's first offering. The film does however demonstrate the assured filmmaking, strong dramatic characterization, and unconventional plot that would become PTA staples. Admittedly the film does become slow at times, but it evokes a particular mood so vividly while managing to avoid all the cliches of the Vegas/casino genre that even it's slowest parts have this inexplicable magnetism that is almost hypnotic. 

Thoughts on the First Behind the Scenes Look at LES MIS

Wow. Just wow. It's not often that I get chills from a behind the scenes feature. Yesterday Universal moved the release date of Tom Hooper's (THE KING'S SPEECH) take on the classic musical to Christmas, and today it released this nice extended clip. And while not as epic as the first trailer for CLOUD ATLAS, there is some really great stuff here. 

Most of the clip focuses on the fact that every take was sung live during filming. Seeing how much emotion it empowers each performance with is just amazing. One of the most fascinating pieces is seeing Hugh Jackman's various takes on one of Jean Valjean's key soliloquies. And while all the actors offer really great insight, it's Jackman's demonstration that really shows what this particular way of shooting can do for performances. It gives them so many outlets and different paths to explore, while bringing a much needed component of realism and pure emotion. It's such a wonderful idea that really seems like it's going to bring something truly amazing to the adaptation. It makes you wonder why every musical doesn't do this, though I'm sure it's because of the extreme length of time it must have taken to film each scene. It's a truly groundbreaking idea, and if Tom Hooper pulls it off I would not be surprised one bit if he received an Oscar nomination. 

My only complaint would have to be that we don't get a sneak peak (or listen) of Russell Crowe's Inspector Javert. I know for a fact that Crowe is a very talented singer and I am very anxious to hear and see his take on the character. We also don't get a glimpse of Helena Bonham Carter or Sacha Baron Cohen which is regrettable. However, the cast is stunning (especially Anne Hathaway as Fantine, WOW) and the film looks like it has the real chance at being something very special. 

PTA FEST 2012

If you'll apologize the weird picture format (Blogger refuses to allow me to do what I want with photos), I'd like to share in a little endeavor with all of you. For those of you who don’t know, my favorite director today (perhaps of all time) is Paul Thomas Anderson. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the opening weekend screenings of his newest film (and my most anticipated film of the year), THE MASTER. As such, I will have to wait until the beginning of next week to actually see it. Because of this, I have decided to partake in a little event I’m dubbing PTA FEST 2012. Starting either tomorrow night, I will be watching each of Anderson’s first five films in order and presenting my thoughts here afterward, eventually leading to my review of THE MASTER early next week.

Now, while I can’t promise these posts will be as in depth as I might like, I will do my best to provide at least a little of my “insight” in each. I hope this exercise will not only further my already immense appreciation and love of PTA’s films, but also inspire some of you to check out his work if you are unfamiliar or just haven’t seen it in a while. Either way, let’s get to watching!