Defiance

As soon as I read the brief plot synopsis on IMDB of Defiance, I knew it was a movie that I wanted to see. While I missed the experience of seeing it in theaters, I finally caught it one night on television. Defiance, which is based on actual events, tells the tale of the Bielski brothers (mostly the older two) who are a Jewish family living in Belarus, when the Nazis decide to roll on through and carry out the “Final Solution”. After witnessing the atrocities that are being inflicted on their neighbors, the brothers flee to the forest in an attempt to escape the same fate of their neighbors. As the Nazis carry out their plan, more and more people are jeopardized. However, after hearing about the Bielski’s that are hiding out in the forest, people begin to join them, and what started out as one family’s hiding place turns into a woodland safe-house for over 1,000 Jewish refugees, with the elder Bielski’s in the roles as caretakers.
As I was watching this movie, there was one thing that kept on bugging me; I wasn’t feeling any of the emotion that the film should be rampant with. Of course there were instances where the audience served as the witnesses to the emotion, but I never felt it. This lack of feeling really caught my attention. In a time where there was so much to be afraid of, why didn’t I feel any of it.
Although some may say I am devoid of emotion, and that is the reason for the lack of feelings, I believe that the cause of this lay in the two main characters, Tuvia (Daniel Craig) and Zus (Liev Schreiber). Both did an admirable job acting, but there seemed to be only strength in their characters, and no emotional parts. I wasn’t sure if they were stonewalling because of their roles as the leaders, or if the emotion just wasn’t there. I know it may seem weird that I am focusing so much on the emotion of this film, but when it comes to films that have the atrocities of the Holocaust as their backdrop, I have found emotion to be the main aspect of the film.
As I said there seemed to be nothing wrong with the acting, nothing was over the top, as some films that deal with this historical period tend to do, but it seemed to be compensating for the films that overwhelm their audiences with emotion by allowing the audience to feel very little. It is very hard to lose yourself in the story when you feel as though a major aspect is escaping you. I understand that some people may find this review to be bad, but I have tried to write it several times, and I keep getting lost in the lack of emotion of this film. In the end I would have to say that this film allows the audience to be outsiders that are looking in, but not participating or connecting with the characters. This aspect has made it very hard to give Defiance a rating, but I feel comfortable giving it a 7.

My Sister's Keeper

I read the book version of My Sister’s Keeper about a year and a half ago, and found my newest Favorite Writer. I’ve since read three more novels by Jodi Picoult (pronounced pee-ko), and loved them all to varying degrees, but none so much as My Sister’s Keeper. What I loved best about that book was not that each character was a fully realized person (which was great), but that the story had a completeness to it, such that you saw the entire picture only when you had read the last page.

Anna Fitzgerald is thirteen years old, and to the surprise of her family, she is seeking medical emancipation from her parents, the reason being that she was genetically engineered before birth to be a perfect bone marrow match from her sister Kate, who has leukemia. She has undergone countless medical procedures, all without being asked, in service to her sister. The ramifications of such a decision will be unpredictable, for Anna’s family and for Anna herself.

Book-to-movie adaptations are a tried and true convention of film, but some books are just begging to have movies made out of them. My Sister’s Keeper was kinda like that. After a small battle over rights and money, we have a Hollywood version of this movie, complete with an Oscar darling playing the lead role. But don’t break out the champagne just yet. The movie is pretty good, but takes some rather alarming departures from the book.

To start with, the movie had beautiful lighting and sets, and the directing made it flow rather nicely. Props go to Nick Cassavettes for having a pretty steady hand when it came to directing. The acting, however, left a little to be desired. Nobody in it was particularly bad, but I got the sense from most of the actors that this wasn’t a movie they were very invested in. Abigail Breslin is an exception; she portrayed Anna’s combination of spunk and timidity very well, and I could tell she was putting out her best effort. Cameron Diaz was also very well-cast, and was as good as she can be (which, granted, isn’t saying much). Alec Baldwin, however, completely phoned in his role and checked out of the movie. This is a real shame, because his character (Campbell Alexander, the lawyer representing Anna) was one of my favorite parts of the book, especially his numerous “he’s a service dog” jokes. He’s not given his due screen time in the movie, and is tragically underused. Though with Baldwin’s I’ll-be-in-my-trailer attitude about this role, it’s not all that surprising that he got cast aside.

Sofia Vassilieva puts in a very rote and cliché performance as Kate, cancer girl extraordinaire. Her reactions to everything are exactly what a 15-year-old girl’s would be, but that’s a credit to both the screenwriters and Picoult. She plays them just right, but in a way that doesn’t surprise the viewer at all. Evan Ellingson is given a somewhat large part and doesn’t really know what to do with it. The only other thing I’ve seen him in was a few episodes of 24 where he played Jack Bauer’s nephew, and was pretty bad. Joan Cusack plays a judge with a daughter who passed away, which scores points for plot resonation, yet Cusack turns in a mediocre performance.

***GREAT BIG HUGE SPOILER ALERT***

The thing that made this movie not nearly as great as it could have been was the change in ending. In the book, Kate survives because Anna dies in a car accident and posthumously donates both her kidneys, saving Kate’s life. In the movie, Kate dies in a completely ordinary manner, one you expect from the very beginning of the film, and Anna and the rest of her family move on to lead relatively normal lives. This switch in the movie transports the very meaning of the story to a totally different place than where it is in the book.

Now, given the moviemakers have the author’s approval (or the changes are thoughtful and make sense if the author is dead or otherwise unavailable), departures from original source material are acceptable. After all, Lord of the Rings strayed very far in the details from Tolkien’s original story, but by-and-large they were good and intelligent choices. So the differences from book to movie in My Sister’s Keeper don’t upset me all that much. It’s just that most of the choices the moviemakers made took away what made the story so wildly original, and thus popular. The story went from new, edgy and intriguing to kind of ordinary and unremarkable. Kate dying of cancer and Anna living a normal life afterwards are just so… well, ordinary. I have a feeling Picoult was involved in the changes that were made, though her approval is uncertain to me. Some of the changes have a novelist’s touch, but the switch to a more ordinary ending seems like a very un-Picoult move to make.

All in all, the movie wasn’t bad. I know that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement, but it was an emotionally wrenching and tear-inducing way to spend two hours, if you’re into that kind of thing. What’s great about this movie is that, if you’re a guy, you can cry at this movie and not feel like a panty-waist. It’s complicated and real enough that it feels like a tragedy that actually happened, rather than a contrived Hollywood tissue-fest.

In short, if you’re a breathing human being, you need to read this book. If there’s nothing better at the video store, you should see this movie.

Iconic lines (or exchanges):

Judge (the dog): BARK BARK BARK!!!

Judge De Salvo: Mr. Alexander, control your dog or he will be removed from the courtroom!

Campbell: Quiet, Judge!

Judge De Salvo: Excuse me?!?

Campbell: Not you, the dog.

Anna: Can I pet him?

Campbell: Judge is a service dog.

Anna: What’s he for?

Campbell: I have an iron lung. Judge keeps me away from metal detectors.

22 Rating: 8

Particle Man

Year One (video review)

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

I love fantasy movies and books, which I blame on Particle Man. However, despite his initial encouragement that I begin reading this genre. I have continued reading the books or seeing the movies with no prompting from him. One of the series that I became the most engrossed in while reading was the Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis. From the way these books are written, they were made to be transferred to the big screen. The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe was the first in the series to be made into a film, and while it was enjoyable, I wasn’t exactly thrilled by it. Then next movie that was made was Prince Caspian, which I was hoping would be better than its predecessor.
Prince Caspian tells the tale of the Pevensie children after they have been away from Narnia for a year. On their way back to school, they are magically transported back to the land they once ruled, however, things have changed quite a bit. Also at the same time Prince Caspian, a prince of the enemies of Narnia, has escaped from his evil uncle and summons help to aid the Narnians in their reclaiming of what they once were. Caspian pictures that he will summon the Kings and Queens that originally saved Narnia, which he does, however, since they have been living in a different world for the past year, which is significantly longer in Narnian time, they show up only a year older then when they first entered Narnia.
As I said, although I enjoyed the first film, I was hoping that this one would improve upon what was started. I wasn’t disappointed. Although there were some changes to the story from the version told in the book, the general feeling of the story was still there. Much like the first film, the special effects continued to be exemplary and gave the audience the fantastical nature that they were hoping for, which is always enjoyable.
While special effects are important, it alone cannot carry a movie. The actors must lift some weight. I don’t know why, but I feel that the actors grew into their roles as actors more than they were in the first film. They don’t seem older than they should for the roles that they play, but I get the feeling that they were more serious about it than previously. I have watched Prince Caspian several times and each time I feel the acting is better than the previous film.
I think the main difference that I find in the quality of the films is determined in watchability. I have watched Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe a couple of times, and it served as a pleasant distraction, but I have watched Prince Caspian much more, and it has always been enjoyable. I feel that the director had a better sense of what he was doing in this follow-up and was therefore able to give us a more enjoyable story. I’m the kind of person who can watch movies repeatedly, and I find a comfort in the fact that no matter how many times I watch Prince Caspian, that it continues to be just as enjoyable as the first time. I give the movie a 10.

Bride Wars

When I first began reading about the plot of Bride Wars, I was intrigued. It seemed like a cute little movie that was perfect for a Girls’ Night out. In fact I had hoped to go with my friends to see it, until I started hearing from people who had already seen it. My mother thought it was great, which for me is not a good sign for a movie, but I had heard negative reviews from other people, but felt like I needed to see it on my own and form my own opinions. I should have listened to other people.
Bride Wars tells the story of 2 lifelong friends in New York City, Liv (Kate Hudson), an attorney, and Emma (Anne Hathaway), a schoolteacher. These two are both in serious relationships, and one day while going through Liv’s closet, the girls find a box from Tiffany’s and without opening it assume that Liv’s boyfriend, Nate, will propose and she tells everyone that she is already engaged, even though he hasn’t proposed yet. While waiting for Nate to propose, Fletcher, Emma’s boyfriend proposes. This leads Liv to confront Nate about why he hasn’t proposed, which he does after the confrontation. Now that they are both happily engaged, they meet with their dream wedding planner, Marion St. Clair (Candace Bergen) and she announces that she has availability for weddings at the Plaza in June, which is a dream that the two friends share. They both pick different dates, since they are each other’s maids of honor. However, due to a scheduling mishap their weddings are booked for the same day. Neither wants to give up their dates, and they begin sabotaging each other and their weddings.
If this was supposed to be a movie about friendship and how true friendships always last, then I fear for the people who believe that. If this movie has one message it is that in this world you can only trust yourself and to never open up to anyone because you never know when a moment of weakness where you share something will come back to haunt you.
However, I have more problems with the movie than just it crap-tastic depiction of lifelong friendship. The movie didn’t bother to delve any deeper than the traditional bride mentality that is accepted as the norm. I mean this movie is basically about tow really big and expensive temper tantrums, where it is all about the bride and no one else matters. If the superficial emotions that are portrayed in this film were the only problem, it might be surmountable, but that isn’t the only problem,
There were a lot of actors in this movie, but I don’t feel like anyone was really acting. I had the same problem with Must Love Dogs. I feel that the script was so superficial that the actors didn’t really care about their characters. The film should have been called “Really Expensive Puff Piece and We’re Just Paying These People To Show Up.”
This wasn’t a good movie. There is no way around the fact. The plot was horrible, the characters were flat, and if there was any acting that occurred in this film, then it escaped me. I give it a -13. Just a tip for all you brides out there, NEVER ACT LIKE THESE WOMEN!

Vantage Point

Eye-witness accounts, by and large, are very unreliable. In court, you need more than just somebody saying “I saw him do it” to get a conviction. The reason is that what we see is completely subject to our perceptions, attitudes and mindset. Memory is editable; things can be cut out, blocked out, and even not recorded at all. That’s why two people can see the same exact event, but have two completely different takes on what happened.

Vantage Point would seem, at first glance, to take advantage of that. But in the end, it kinda… doesn’t. The particulars of the story don’t really turn out to have anything to do with the idea of “perception ≠ truth.” That’s a little disappointing to a cerebral, outside-the-box thinker like me. Vantage Point doesn’t plumb the depths of what we see being the limits of our world, or any such thing. Where it scores major points, though, is in having a fantastic plot, being well-shot, and being excellently paced. Even if it can’t be a deep philosophical treatise (and let’s face it, not every movie can), it can at least get the other, slightly easier elements of moviemaking right; Vantage Point definitely does.

The motif that Vantage Point goes with is the story of an event being told from several different viewpoints, all weaving together to give the viewer a complete picture of what actually happened. Now, this is not a new idea to cinema. Rashomon-style movies have been done ever since… well, Rashomon. It requires an investment on the part of the viewer, as they must be paying attention the whole time. And the payoff must be great indeed to reward that investment. Vantage Point’s payoff is alright, if a little simple-minded. The “event” it concerns is an assassination attempt of the U.S. President during an international summit for peace he has arranged in Spain, shortly after the 9/11 attacks. There is a shooting, and a bombing shortly after, and then another very shortly after that. The entire plot of the movie takes place in approximately 30 minutes real-time, but the movie is just 90 minutes long. It seems longer, but not because it drags. I can’t think of a single moment in the entire film where I was bored or disinterested. It also felt longer in that there was just so much plot and so many characters that it felt very full. One of the strengths of this movie is that it holds your attention throughout.

The movie has varying degrees of success at doing several different things. It has a strong human element to the story, has plenty of action, and always keeps the tension high. Movies as jam-packed as Vantage Point have a tendency to paint the characters as two-dimensional, falling into good guys/bad guys categories, but it amazingly doesn’t do that. Those categories do exist, but they break down and bleed together at a certain point for some characters. The movie never quite lets you off the hook, and does some funny things with our perceptions of character. None of the acting is spectacular, with the possible exception of Forrest Whitaker. His portrayal of an average Joe who does the right thing because it’s what needs to be done is very real and appealing, though I’m sure it wasn’t even a shadow of a challenge for him.

That brings me to the plot, which in the contexts of narrative flow and storytelling, was out of this world. It had all the major elements that make a great plot solidly in hand: it was engaging throughout, kept us interested on multiple levels, and revealed essential plot points at just the right times. It would have been nice if the story had a deeper meaning, but it was such a great ride that I’m not that disappointed. It didn’t quite answer all my questions, and was ever-so-slightly unbelievable, but considering how far it could have gone off the deep end, it executed itself very well. It was tight throughout, and at the end, it made sense. As the viewer, I felt a sense of accomplishment that I was able to follow it, which is a tricky thing for a movie to pull off.

Vantage Point could have been better, but that might be asking a lot of a movie that already has so much going for it. All the elements come together very nicely, and the pieces all fit together to make a complete picture that I could understand. It’s a shame this didn’t do better at the box office, because it was a tightly constructed movie that didn’t make me work my skepticism too much.

Iconic Lines:
“He doesn’t even look like me.”
“The beauty of American arrogance is that they can’t imagine a world where they’re not a step ahead.”

22 Rating: 13

Particle Man

Synecdoche, New York

I'm not quite sure how to explain a movie like Synecdoche, New York. So let's just start with some facts, in the order in which they become apparent.

The title, of course, is a pun. There is a city in New York called Schenectady, but synecdoche is a literary technique in which a part of something is used to represent the whole. Mickey Mouse is an simple example that comes readily to mind--his iconic circular ears are often used to denote the full Mickey, or sometimes the full Disney empire.

And the film is written and directed by Charlie Kaufman. Kaufman has established a reputation as a writer with his screenplays for Adapdation, Being John Malkovich, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But Synecdoche is his first time in the director's chair as well.

So, if you're me, you're really excited. The film is named after a literary device, it contains a pun, and it's written/directed by Charlie Kaufman. Maybe not everyone's cup o' tea, but it's an English geek's wet dream. Throw in a starring-Philip-Seymour-Hoffman and I'm sold.

The results? Sadly, it's a bit underwhelming. Or, rather, the type of whelm it aims for ends up trapping it into earning the prefix under-. Let me unpack that.

In the film, Philip Seymour Hoffman is Caden Cotard, a director living in Schenectady who, upon receiving a MacArthur "genius" grant, decides to finally write and direct his opus. Cotard puts his opus together on an enormous stage in New York City, bringing in thousands of actors, all of whom perform semi-related, equally important little vignettes. Essentially, it's New York City in miniature. It's one way the title gets enacted.

But really, the movie is about Cotard. Not just about his weirdly enormous, ever-evolving, and ultimately never-finished play. But also about his life and about his relationships--with Catherine Keener, his artist-wife who abandons him and takes his daughter with her; with Michelle Williams, his vapidish perennial actress; and with Samantha Morton, his box office assistant turned personal assistant turned true love. 

The movie is very into being "real" -- for example, it spends an uncomfortable amount of time on Cotard's weird medical issues, such as seizures, an inability to salivate, and his sycosis (inflammation of hair follicles, not the more well known "psychosis" (another pun)). But it also gets at the real by injecting a lot of the surreal. As the play moves forward, the timeline becomes more and more confused (both in Cotard's head and in the viewer's.) His psychologist (Hope Davis) seems weirdly telepathic. Samantha Morton's home is always shown as burning (and no one seems to mind).  This being Charlie Kaufman -- and this movie being named "Synecdoche" -- these things all mean something. But it seems like there's a lot that can't be fully comprehended in a first pass; the movie needs a second, third, fourth, fifth viewing. (Kaufman states as much himself. In an interview with IonCinema, he says: "You need to see it more than once. The trick is to get people to watch it more than once.")

But therein lies the problem. Because of its focus on being "real", it's also quite a bit sad, a tad hopeless, a little bleak. One of Cotard's remarks to his actors is that he "won't settle for anything less than the brutal truth. Brutal. Brutal." And brutal is not so bad a word for this movie; it's so emotionally raw that it hurts to be a part of, and so it's not something a viewer is necessarily eager to revisit. Which is a shame, because I'm sure much of Kaufman's use of symbol in this movie is brilliant, but I'm also sure that I won't be sitting through the entire film again anytime soon to find out.

To foist a bit of synecdoche upon you, dear reader, for me the film is summed up by Sammy Barnathan (Tom Noonan), whom Cotard hires to portray himself in his play. Sammy does a marvelous job capturing Cotard, but when he's not in character, he can smile. The smile really stuck out to me while I was watching the film, and I think it's because Cotard doesn't really have a smile in him (thus making fake-Cotard's smile all the more glaring). Sure, Philip Seymour Hoffman does turn the corners of his mouth up from time to time, but it's always an awkward, embarrassed, or unsetted smile. Never genuine. But Sammy's smile--the actor's smile--is genuine. And as a result, I'd suggest that he, not Cotard, is the more real, more genuine person.

In all his obsession to make his film "real," Charlie Kaufman left out joy, happiness, and (with a few notable exceptions) laughter. He seems to have given in to something that was always an impulse but never a controlling feature of his earlier work -- the equating of "real" with obscene, or uncomfortable, or upsetting. And those things are just part of the real, no more or less part than mirth is. And the tragedy is this focus on the ickiness in "real" has actually made Cotard--whom I imagine has more than a bit of Kaufman in him--into something like a two-dimensional character. Which means that, even for all its artfulness, I can't give Synecdoche, New York any more than a 2. 

Quotes that serve as a part to represent the whole:

Caden Cotard: I will be dying and so will you, and so will everyone here. That's what I want to explore. We're all hurtling towards death, yet here we are for the moment, alive. Each of us knowing we're going to die, each of us secretly believing we won't.

Sammy: (handing Cotard a slip of paper with his ex-wife's address on it) I want to follow you there and see how you lose even more of yourself. ... ... Research.

Minister: Everything is more complicated than you think. You only see a tenth of what is true. There are a million little strings attached to every choice you make; you can destroy your life every time you choose. But maybe you won't know for twenty years. And you'll never ever trace it to its source. And you only get one chance to play it out. Just try and figure out your own divorce. And they say there is no fate, but there is: it's what you create. Even though the world goes on for eons and eons, you are here for a fraction of a fraction of a second. Most of your time is spent being dead or not yet born. But while alive, you wait in vain, wasting years, for a phone call or a letter or a look from someone or something to make it all right. And it never comes or it seems to but doesn't really. And so you spend your time in vague regret or vaguer hope for something good to come along. Something to make you feel connected, to make you feel whole, to make you feel loved. And the truth is I'm so angry and the truth is I'm so fucking sad, and the truth is I've been so fucking hurt for so fucking long and for just as long have been pretending I'm OK, just to get along, just for, I don't know why, maybe because no one wants to hear about my misery, because they have their own, and their own is too overwhelming to allow them to listen to or care about mine. Well, fuck everybody. Amen. 

Repo! The Genetic Opera

Last year, I started seeing and hearing about some weird movie called Repo! The Genetic Opera. I knew that it was going to be directed by Darren Lyunn Bousman, of Saw infamy, and that it had a really interesting cast including Anthony Stewart Head (Giles, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and Sarah Brightman(!). The movie got delayed for a while, but then got a limited release in about 10 theaters before hitting video. I was disappointed, since it sounded interesting, and since Lionsgate is starting to get a reputation for This Sort of Thing. I rented Repo! a few weeks ago, and the reasons for the limited release were very, very clear: this is one musical that the curtain should have stayed down on.
Repo! takes place in the future, in your cookie-cutter post-apocalyptic world, with the same Road Warrior/Blade Runner aesthetic that you've come to expect from this type of movie. Sickness is rampant, and replacement organs have become commonplace. So commonplace, that they are treated like houses or cars, or other expensive commodities: miss a payment, and the Repo Man comes calling to take the merchandise back. There is a company run by dying magnate Rotti Largo (Paul Sorvino), and his useless children (Bill Moseley, Paris Hilton, and Nivek Ogre). There is Blind Mag (Sarah Brightman), the singer whose eyes Largo replaced, and who unbeknownst to her is due for repossession. There is Nathan Wallace (Anthony Stewart Head), the reluctant Repo Man; and his sick, rebellious daughter Shilo (Alexa Vega). And you know, there's a lot of blood, gore, and singing.
If it seems like I'm not doing a very good job recalling the plot, the problem is that there wasn't much plot to recall. There's something about Rotti dying, and trying in vain to pick an heir to his company. There's something about Nathan getting fed up with having to hide his gruesome profession from his daughter, and her feeling locked in by her father due to her health. Situations change for some characters, but nobody who survives to the end of the film grows or really learns anything. I didn't care about a single character. That is bad, bad script design. Strike One.
There are some puzzling choices made in this movie. For a musical (and one with no spoken dialogue that I can remember), there are an awful lot of non/poor singers in the film. Sarah Brightman is an opera singer, and acquits herself nicely as expected. Repo! writer/composer Terrance Zudnich does an ok job, and Anthony Stewart Head does ok despite the fact that he is forced to do an American accent. That aside, he shows great range and versatility with some gutteral, quasi-death-metal deliveries. But those of us who have heard what an incredible singer he is know that the material is holding him back. Ogre does an ok job, but Sorvino, Hilton, Moseley, and Vega should have restraining orders issued against them from the microphones of the world. Strike Two.
But for all the bad/mediocre performances, the best actor/singers in the world couldn't have saved this movie from its biggest enemy: its insufferably boring music and story. Out of 58 songs, I would deem ONE of them "ok" at best. There are no strong hooks or memorable melodies. And this is a MUSICAL. WITH HARDLY ANY TALKING. Strike Three. You're out, Repo.
A movie as weird and graphic as this should never be boring, but I was suffering for virtually every minute of its hour and a half running time. I give Repo! a -18 out of 22 on the 22 scale. I would have given it a lower score, but an actor as compelling as Tony Head will always bring something to the table, even in a movie as abysmally incompetent as this one.
-Your Racist Friend

Doubt

The word "doubt" is a word that for most frequently elicits feelings of discomfort and uncertainty. Often seen as something negative, doubt is usually something that haunts us rather than blesses us. And because of that, people don't want to feel it, talk about it, or deal with it.

I recognize Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams to be some of the best, if not the best in the business. The previews for this movie looked dramatic and intense, and the content potentially troubling. This combined with the title created an unconscious aversion for me. I mentioned to several people that I had seen Doubt, and the common reaction was "How was that? I was interested in seeing that but didn't get around to it." This answer makes me believe that I wasn't alone in my intrigued yet hesitant feelings.

Some have said that the movie is slow, which I can see but don't necessarily agree with. This is one of those films that centers mostly around the dialogue of a few characters without a lot of plot twists, bells or whistles. Meryl Streep is Sister Aloysius, a severe nun whose by-the-book approach to the church and school is powerful, yet unappreciated by most. Opposite her is Hoffman who plays Father Flynn. (Opposite being the operative word.) Where she is condemning, he is forgiving. Where she finds fault, he finds potential to learn and grow. Where she is cold and distant, he is warm and approachable. And yet director John Patrick Shanley somehow avoids the tempting "good cop/bad cop" formula and gives them an impressive amount of depth. Why impressive? Because for most of the film, we see each character around other people, interacting in conversations in church and class, projecting how they want to be perceived, not necessarily how they really are. The third member in this triumvirate is Amy Adams as Sister James. She is a gentle and caring woman who teaches for the private school and seems to have a love for what she does. She is nervous, however, and doesn't assert herself as much as Sister Aloysius, who criticizes her for this very reason.

The year in which the story is set is 1964, and the school has it's first black student named Donald Miller. Each of the adults want things to go well with him, but go about making that happen in different ways. Father Flynn decides to befriend him and at one point calls him out of Sister James' class to go to his office. When Donald returns he seems upset, and out of concern Sister James talks to Sister Aloysius. Sister Aloysius assumes the worst and begins a crusade to discover what Father Flynn has done and bring him down.

These three characters completely drive the story. Adams beautifully and sincerely portrayed a less experienced nun with a fresh love for for people who is caught in the middle of a potential scandal. She filled some important shoes, because her thoughts and motivations most closely resemble our own as we watch the whole thing unfold. I've always loved Philip Seymour Hoffman, and this film gives me no reason to doubt this love. While some might say he was out-acted, I think an important piece of puzzle here is that his character is a mild-mannered "man of the cloth." And this type of character next to Meryl Streep's large and ominous presence is going to experience some shrinkage.

Meryl Streep...do I really need to go on? Dr. Worm described her in this film as "in her own orbit," and this description fits aptly. What I love about her is that even though she's played threatening and powerful characters before, they aren't the same person. This is a problem many actors face in that they lean towards having character categories, whereas Streep avoids duplicating personalities. Sister Aloysius is a complete person which I think in the end makes her even more threatening...

Despite its obvious strengths, Doubt was a tough one for me to rate. I recognized the aspects that set the film apart as well-acted, well-scripted, and well-directed. My eyes were glued to the screen throughout, and I was blown away by so many wonderful performances and scenes. And yet...something was missing. "What on earth could be missing??" I wondered. Eventually I figured it out: clarity. Now, I'm not one of those people who needs or wants movies to spell out every little thing for me...I appreciate uncertainty and ambiguity in general. However, ambiguity, as the title might leave you to believe, is the main ingredient here. And when we have very little idea what has actually occurred, it's difficult to invest ourselves in one particular person or idea. And this is was distanced me from Doubt.

Rating: 13

It's tough to give a research paper a low grade when it provides all the correct facts and includes the appropriate information, but fails to create a big picture and a reason to exist. That's the best metaphor I can come up with for my feelings about Doubt. Excellent on pretty much all counts, for me, it still failed to be something more than the sum of its parts. This is because I felt unable to invest in something or someone, and the actual content of the film wasn't what I would generally consider "enjoyable." Doubt is definitely worth a watch, especially with its wonderfully appropriate ending. But I consider my appreciation of it like that of the C&E Catholics for church: nominal at best.

Deadgirl

Frequent readers of this blog will have surely noted my constant complaints about how sameness is a problem at the cinema. In my defense, this shouldn't be a big surprise since I'm the oldest member of TMBC, and the one whose seen the most films in a wide variety of genres (though I think Wicked Little Critta is catching up fast....). Therefore, it only makes sense that I get more excited and impressed when I find something truly original. And I get REALLY gratified if and when I see something that not only breaks the mold, but smashes it into dust, and sweeps it into the gutter, to never been seen again. And after seeing innovative horror like Deadgirl, all other common horror films can say is this: Hello from the gutter.
Deadgirl is a film unlike anything I've see before, and has the most intriguing/mortifying hook I've seen come down the pike in a long time. I saw Deadgirl at the Boston Underground Film Festival, where festival co-director Kevin Monaghan told the audience something to the effect of, "I can't say that I hope you enjoy Deadgirl, but I hope that you take something away from it, that it affects you". I'm leaped at the chance to see this film at BUFF, because when I read about what the film was about, I doubted that it would get even a very limited theatrical release. After actually seeing it, I'm sure of that. But...enough foreplay.
Deadgirl follows the story of two teenagers, Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez) and JT (Noah Segan), local high school rejects, Trenchcoat Mafia types. At the beginning of the film, they cut class during a fire alarm to smoke weed and drink beer at an abandoned local asylum. There, they find themselves in the basement where they make a startling discovery: a beautiful, naked woman handcuffed to a gurney. And she's dead.....or at least she looks it........JT wants to free her, call 9/11, and GTFO. But Rickie? He wants to....keep her. To say much more would be going into very heavy spoiler territory, but the "dead girl" has a secret that makes deciding what to do with her (or to her.....) very squarely into "morally grey"....or at least squarely into that territory for Rickie.
If you're thinking that this sounds pretty tasteless, you would actually be very wrong. Deadgirl deals with it's very unorthodox and very dark subject matter with a lot of insight and restraint, and some very black humor, as appropriate. It does not revel in the extreme levels of gore and shock of it's ugly, stupid cousins in the "torture porn" genre. Having said that, this film is clearly NOT for the squeamish. Horror films have frequently been somewhat simplistic morality plays in America, but Deadgirl takes a very clear situation, and builds the plot and action around it, as opposed to shoehorning in lazy subtext in which teenagers who drink, do drugs, and engage in premarital sex are killed arbitrarily.
I liked Deadgirl, at least as much as I actually can like a film that has such brutal subject matter. The acting, directing, and writing are all very, very good. This film disturbed me, made me jump from time to time (but not in that cheap way), and made me shake my head with disbelief with it's final scene. I wish that I could go into more depth about the plot, but it's one of those films with a very minimal plot, so even simple elements of the story constitute huge spoilers. If requested, I might be able to put up an addendum on I Should Be Allowed To Think, TMBC's sister site.
Deadgirl is a powerful film about slippery slope moralities, and how "little deaths" become so much bigger. I will never forget this film. For originality, solid content, and superb craftsmanship, I give Deadgirl a 17 out of 22 on the 22 scale.

P.S. HUGE props go to Radiohead for letting this film use one of their songs.

-Your Racist Friend

Twilight

Here’s a fun experiment for everyone to try. Put yourself in a big group of females, mention the name Edward Cullen, and see how many swoon. Edward Cullen is of course one of the main characters of the Twilight series. This book series has been adapted to the big screen, with more installments to come, and was just released on DVD Narch 21st. To celebrate the big release of the DVD, many places had midnight release parties like they’ve done with Harry Potter. However, I’m sure many of our loyal readers are asking themselves what the big deal is with these movies. Let me explain to you my experience.
Twilight is the first in a series of four books. The first installment introduces us to Isabella Swan, who moves from Phoenix, Arizona to Forks, Washington to live with her dad Charlie Swan. On her first day there she meets her Biology lab partner, Edward Cullen, who seems repulsed by her very presence. However, as the film progresses and these two get to know each other, we learn that Edward, who is described as being a gorgeous model type teenager, may have more to him than we think, which could cause problems for not only his family, but also for Isabella.
I saw this movie a while ago, and have kept thinking about it. I don’t want to lead people on in believing that it is such an amazing movie that I just haven’t stopped thinking about it, because that isn’t exactly the case. I’ve read the books and hoped that the transition from book to movie would be smooth, more specifically as smooth as Edward Cullen is said to be ;). However, this is not what I experienced. I didn’t like how some of the things that were in the book got changed, and I’m not talking about slight things, like to color of the water, I mean pivotal scenes that were kind of ruined and were only slightly reminiscent of the scenes in the book. If I hadn’t read the book I probably would have liked the movie more than I did.
The acting was fine. Nothing outstanding. Robert Pattinson, who is known for being the courageous Cedric Diggory from Harry Potter, played Edward Cullen. While I’m not saying that he is bad looking in any way, I didn’t see him and this drop dead gorgeous creature that had been described in the books. He did seem tortured, which is what the character called for, but he probably also had problems with the changes from the book. Kristen Stewart fits well in the looks department with her character, Isabella. Her acting was fine but I think she needs to get deeper into the role. She said the lines right and her facials expressions were good, but I didn’t get the feeling that it went much deeper than that superficial level.
I know that this review will not go over well with the fans of Twilight, and I count myself as one of them. But before you all decide to hate me forever let me recap what I have said. The movie would have been better for me if I hadn’t known about the book. The acting was average and could have been deeper. I liked the music and the scenery as well. I am going to give this movie a 6 and challenge those involved in New Moon, the Twilight sequel,  to make me eat my words.

Marie and Bruce

Initial Reaction: "What the hell was that?"

If ever there was an off-putting movie, it would be Marie and Bruce. It's about an unhappy married couple, and not much else. I thought it might offer us some insight into the joy, pain and often never-ending struggle that couples experience. Some might say it did, but geez, I thought insight of any kind was hard to find here.

Marie and Bruce claims fame with me as one of the few movies I didn't want to finish. I mean, I kept thinking that maybe, just maybe the end would redeem it somehow. But the rest of it made it become less and less worth it. I did finish it though, and because of that I am able to bring to you a more complete and negative review.

Marie and Bruce have been married for a number of years, and (thankfully) have no children. The film begins in the morning, and we hear Marie, played by Julianne Moore, telling us how much she dislikes her husband, played by Matthew Broderick. And this isn't just "I'm not sure if I love him anymore" or "Things have changed." This is full on hatred. She's filled with disgust, and as she looks at him sleeping in the bed next to her, refers to him with a string of profanity. He wakes up, and as he does so, she throws up her hands in frustration and whines "No!! Don't wake up!" This opening scene sets an interesting mood and tone that last for the majority of the film.

After they get up, they both make their way into the kitchen and start talking. They go back and forth between extreme politeness dripping with sarcasm and open distaste. When he tells her he's going to have lunch with Roger, she exclaims about how wonderful that is and goes on and on about how she's sorry she'll have to miss out on all of the interesting things Roger will have to say. It's very obvious she feels the opposite.

So this is essentially most of their interaction. They go throughout their day, trying to stay occupied since they're both unemployed and certainly don't want to spend their free time together. He goes out to lunch with Roger (played by Bob Balaban who does an incredible job being boring), then checks himself into a cheap hotel to drink and watch people through their windows. Marie goes out to lunch (apparently though they're unemployed they still have plenty of dough) and ends up being followed by a stray dog as she walks through the city streets. This ends up as a strange, almost dream-like scene in the woods by a river where she actually seems happy for a while.

You know, it's difficult to write this review because I feel like I don't have much to work with. Most of the time the main characters are pretty shallow, and when they're not, there's really nothing going on. From the very start of the film, Marie keeps telling us that she's planning to leave him. The same day, in fact. That night, when they got back to the house, she would tell him she is going to leave him. That's pretty much what keeps us somewhat interested in what is going to happen.

Marie and Bruce, I found out after the fact, is adapted from a play of the same name by Wallace Shawn. I had actually thought while I was watching it that it would make a better play. I might have appreciated it more that way, but now that I've seen this version I don't know if I'd want to sit through something else even closely resembling it again. The characters don't have many layers, and we basically just get to go through their miserable day with them. Even the ending, in which the mood changes slightly, was significantly wanting.

Rating: -13

Dull, sad, uncomfortable, and discouraging, Marie and Bruce left a lot to be desired. Good performances? Yes, but the script and plot just didn't deliver much in the way of meaning. I don't think you could even make the case that this is what a lot of couples deal with. Unpleasant from beginning to end, all I was left with was a feeling of "eww..." and for me, that's never a reason to recommend a movie. So, unless this sounds right up your alley, (and I mean you, Eeyore...) then please don't bother.