No Country for Old Men

Talk about a comeback for the Coen brothers. Joel and Ethan Coen have given us some of the most interesting films of the past decade. They went from The Hudsucker Proxy to Fargo to The Big Lebowski to Oh Brother, Where Art Thou to The Man Who Wasn’t There. I love all of these films. They floundered a bit with George Clooney’s Intolerable Cruelty and Tom Hanks’ Ladykillers, but they are definitely back to true form. Of course, up till now, Fargo was considered their masterpiece; but their newest film, No Country for Old Men gives it some serious competition.

The Coen brothers wrote the screenplay based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy which is different for them since they are used to writing their own original material. Now I haven’t read the novel (big surprise), but the movie is supposed to be a pretty faithful adaptation. What’s interesting is that the film is still distinctly a Coen brothers movie in their unique filming style, fascinating characters and engaging storyline. These guys know how to perfectly mix suspense, drama and humour. As a video editor, I truly enjoyed watching the brilliant cutting of this cat and mouse chase across Texas.

What I found fascinating about No Country for Old Men was that it almost seemed like two different styles of filmmaking. The Coen brothers take their time in the first half of the film. The pace is slower but not annoying like some other films. We are treated to some Fargo-esque atmosphere with the dust replacing the snow. There is hardly any dialogue in the first half as we are treated to character introductions and the silent chase between hunter and prey. The second half speeds up. The editing forces us to imagine some of the killings. We are shown a larger variety of interesting characters. And the timeline begins to jump further ahead. Keeping the pace is the beautiful cinematography work provided by Coen brothers regular Roger Deakins. I loved how much attention was given to boots in this film. There are some inspired shots of boots among scuff marks, blood creeping towards a pair of boots and the slow removal of boots to reveal some ghastly wound. Deakins’ lighting is also masterful when it comes to scenic wilderness shots or the perfect silhouette.

Of course, what will grab most people, and probably stick with them for a while, is the chilling performance of Javier Bardem (Before Night Falls) as Anton Chigurh. I know I’m not the first to say this but Chigurh is the best villain since Hannibal Lechter. During his first kill on screen, Bardem makes a face that is so disturbing, I still see flashes of it in my mind. Chigurh is one of those psychopaths who always remain calm whether it be mowing down victims with his high-powered air gun or having a quiet discussion on keeping one’s promises. Bardem is a treat to watch and should be getting a nomination come Oscar time. I also have to say that his haircut is simply dreadful.

Josh Brolin is having a great year. He has made some smart choices with a role in Grindhouse’s Planet Terror and American Gangster. Now he plays a clever hunter who foolishly thinks he can get away with walking off with two million dollars. With the unfortunate name of Llewelyn, Brolin hold his own while trying to escape from Bardem’s Chigurh. All his actions are purposeful and create a rich character without having to use much dialogue.

Tommy Lee Jones is perfectly cast as Ed Tom Bell, the local sheriff who has a hard time adjusting to the violent state of the world. Jones is at his best when he is sharing his vast knowledge with others, namely his deputy played by Garret Dillahunt (Damages, John From Cincinnati). The narration of Jones pulls the whole film together with his commentary on violence and how things have changed.

Like most Coen brothers films, each character is fully drawn and given a chance to shine; gas station attendants, motel owners, border guards and boys on bikes are given fun lines and deemed just as important as the main characters. Woody Harrelson puts in some time as a slick bounty hunter and I wish I could have seen him more in this picture. I love his drawl.

No Country for Old Men has everything going for it: acting, script, cinematography, lighting and even sound design. This is a must see movie, assuming you can stand some brutally violent scenes. I’m thinking that No Country for Old Men is the current benchmark for how a suspense film should be done. This is a movie that will definitely stick with you long after the silent credits roll.

Lions for Lambs

I still don’t know what to think of Lions for Lambs. Since I saw it yesterday, my mind keeps returning to some of the questions raised in the script, so I guess it worked in that aspect. Lions of Lambs definitely doesn’t give you answers but it does make you think, if you’re willing to let them in. The critics have been pretty harsh on this film, but that has to expected with something this politically charged. Probably the biggest complaint, however, is how these questions are presented through alot of static sitting and talking. It is for this reason I think Lions for Lambs would have worked ten times better as a play.

There is a lot of talking in this film. I was trying to think another film that involved this much sitting and discussion. All I could come up with was Jarmusch’s Coffee and Cigarettes, but that one had more vignettes and dealt with more inane, yet entertaining, chatter. The two main (and best) storylines are basically interviews that cover the gullibleness of the media, the “must-win” attitude of the government and the youth’s apathetic response to the war. The acting is superb. Tom Cruise is perfectly cast as a slick Republican trying to sell his version of the war to a doubting, yet shrewd, journalist played by Meryl Streep. Their cat and mouse dialogue is a treat to watch; I loved watching them attack each other but remaining respectfully polite. Robert Redford, who also directs this film, plays a college professor who tries to gage the commitment of an absent student, played surprising well be newcomer Andrew Garfield. Imagine getting the opportunity to sit in a room alone with Redford for probably five days of shooting and holding your own against this Hollywood icon. Garfield graduated from a drama school three years ago; talk about scary. Maybe it’s this freshness that works so well in this scene. As a teacher, I enjoyed watching Redford’s tactics as he tries reasoning with this indifferent student who possesses great potential. With Redford and Garfield showing differing age responses to the war, I wondered where I would fit on the spectrum.

The third storyline in Lions for Lambs, falls a little short for me despite the great performances by Derek Luke (Antwone Fisher, Glory Road) and Michael Pena (Crash, World Trade Center). As students who ignored Redford’s sage advice and joined the army, we are shown a frontline response to war as compared to the other armchair politic storylines. What worked in this story that dealt with stranded soldiers, was the flashbacks to their college days in Redford’s class trying to show skeptical classmates how one man can make a difference. The scenes in the field seemed a little too manipulative to me. In fact, most scenes that were shot outdoors seemed too calculating. There is a shot of Meryl Streep at the end of the film that is completely unnecessary and took away from her storyline. The movie played best when it was just two people talking to each other. This is why I think it would work way better as a play. A morality play at that.

Lions for Lambs was written by Matthew Michael Carnahan who also penned The Kingdom script (hence the appearance of Kingdom director, Peter Berg). Carnahan, obviously, has a lot of opinions surrounding the current wars going on in the Middle East. I found his thoughts much more refreshing in this piece. Redford does a great job directing his actors. There is not much action in this film, but the questions are put forth nicely. I also love that the answers are not given out. The audience is forced to adopt their own opinion as certain characters struggle to make their life-changing decisions.

So what bothered me the most were the manipulative elements thrown in at the end of the film. Only one storyline ends perfectly while the other two try to control your emotions. If you watch the film, I’m sure you’ll know which one I liked. I also hated the images done for the closing credits; the poorly conceived Without a Trace disappearance act almost put a bad taste in my mouth as I left the theatre. See, you wouldn’t get this in a play. If Lions for Lambs was done as a theatrical drama, you would walk away with the powerful questions instead of the manipulative images. Maybe Broadway will listen to me.

I would wait to see this film on DVD. I would see this film with a bunch of people and make time for a discussion afterwards. It would be great if people could use Lions for Lambs as a catalyst to start exploring their own opinions on government, media, military, terrorism, youth, education and responsibility. Hey, it got me thinking.

The Strike

Six days and counting. I get the feeling that the WGA strike won’t be ending anytime soon; and while this will seriously affect my favourite television shows, I am rooting for the writers every step of the way. In a time where we are subjected to crappy reality shows polluting the airwaves, we need to take the time to appreciate the well-crafted, sharply written series. Here’s the lowdown, as I’ve heard, concerning the strike.

Why are the writer’s striking? Mainly, the studios are not paying writers fairly or at all when it comes to rerunning television episodes online. The studio makes big money off the ad spaces; the writers get squat. The studio lawyers have found a loophole that suggests that a webisodes (like the ones The Office made two years ago) is a promotion tool and not an actual episode. The writers also want some more money when it comes to DVD sales since studios keep releasing each show and film a billion times with different special editions.

Why won’t the studios budge? If they give in to the writers, they will have to do the same for the actors and directors when their contracts expire next June.

How is the strike going? The writers have gotten a lot of support from the actors and those involved in the day-to-day running of television shows. The biggest support has come from the showrunners (producers who are often writers themselves.) who refuse to cross the picket lines. These producers understand that all the editing and filming are just an extension of the writer’s script. Unfortunately, the studios have threatened to fire some these showrunners if they refuse to do their producer duties. Imagine JJ Abrams getting fired. The studios need to make sure they don’t back themselves into a corner creatively. The biggest problem is that both sides refuse to meet and discuss. It’s hard to end a strike this way.

How does the strike affect you, the television viewer? Well you might have noticed that late-night talk shows and the upcoming SNLs will be in repeats until the strike ends. That’s what happens to shows that deal with current events.The soap operas are written well in advance, so they should be good until January or February. So you can still get your Days of Our Lives fix. Most current television shows have enough episodes to make it to early December when reruns would happen anyway over the Christmas break. And some shows have scripts for more episodes but the kicker is that some actors are also writers. A good example is The Office where Steve Carell (Michael), BJ Novak (Ryan), Mindy Kaling (Kelly) and Paul Lieberstein (Toby) are part of the Writers Guild of America. They are refusing to film anything. Of course, the studios will threaten them, but who really has the guts to give Steve Carrell a pink slip?

What happens when a network runs out of scripted shows? Any and every reality show conceived will make it on the airwaves. Among the regulars like American Idol, America’s Next Top Model and Dancing with the Stars, there are ones called Farmer Takes a Wife and My Dad is Better Than Your Dad. Sigh.

What about 24 and Lost? Well Fox said that they’ll be delaying the premiere of 24 so that the show will run uninterrupted from start to finish. They have a handful of episodes done, but Fox will wait it out. Lost is a different story. They have 8 episodes completed of their 16-episode season. ABC will run the first eight episodes in February on its own if the need arises. Luckily, producer Damon Lindelof (also on strike) says that the eighth episode ends in a cliffhanger so it’ll seem like a natural stopping point anyway.

What about movies? The big studios have stockpiled a bunch of scripts and are racing to get things filmed by June when the actors and directors are up for renegotiation. If the writer’s strike isn’t settled by then, you can expect the actors and directors will join them on the picket line. We should have movies until late next year so you can still count on The Dark Knight and Indy 4 this summer.

How long can this strike last? In 1998, the writer’s strike lasted five months which delayed the fall season by several weeks. Who knows how long this one will last? I am all for well-written scripts but it’s going to be a scary time in a couple of months. Let’s just hope the talks resume.

Where did you get all this information? Entertainment Weekly explained it well and there's some helpful info at Zap2it.com (http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2007/10/what-a-writers-.html).

Let the panic begin this January.

Bee Movie

I always get a little worried when I see a movie getting over-hyped. With many of the summer blockbusters and Christmas flicks, this constant barrage of commercials and tie-ins start to make me think that the worried studio needs this extra pull before the critics begin with their negative reviews. While I thought many of Jerry Seinfeld’s mini Bee Movie shorts on NBC were funny, it felt a little desperate. I’m surprised he didn’t go door to door. But apparently, Jerry and Dreamworks felt that their cartoon was that good. And I am inclined to agree with them. Mostly.

I’m pretty confident in saying that Bee Movie is the best cartoon that has been put out by Dreamworks. If you have read my previous reviews, I have not been a big Shrek fan and let’s not even consider Shark Tale. Not only is Bee Movie more intelligent and fun, but the animation looks a lot more crisp than the studio’s previous efforts. Now is Bee Movie better than Pixar’s fare? No. Pixar is still the reigning champ when it comes to animation and story, but Bee Movie is a step in the right direction. If this studio can keep this kind of talent in the writing room and animation wing, it may have a chance at giving Pixar a run for their money.

When watching Bee Movie, you can tell that Jerry Seinfeld had a big hand in making it. While he provides the voice for Barry B Benson, our film’s protagonist, he is also one of the four writers. His patented observational humour is nicely sprinkled in with the sight gags, puns and clever quips. I would also venture to say that Bee Movie is probably one of the most sarcastic kids films I have ever seen. There seems to be a lot more jokes aimed at the adults rather than the kids. If I were a young kid watching this film, I would probably enjoy the bee hive sequences and some of the bee interactions with humans, but a lot of the film, (especially the courtroom scenes) would go over my head. I’m guessing most nine year olds haven’t seen Goodfellas or know who Ray Liotta is. But it made me laugh, so should I really care about the intended audience? Unlike Shrek, which I sometimes found inappropriate for kids, Bee Movie just seemed a little too clever for its own good.

Maybe it’s because I enjoy watching Seinfeld, but I found myself forgiving a lot of flaws that would normally rile me up. The story kind of veers all over the place; it starts off with work and relationships and then dramatically shifts to justice and environmental issues. But I forgave that. Bee Movie seems to revel in its stunt casting with everyone from Seinfeld alums Puddy and Kramer to Chris Rock and Oprah Winfrey. But I forgave that. Actually, I spent a bunch of the movie playing “guess the voice-over.” Bee Movie stars Renee Zellweger. But I forgave that. The film also had a slightly creepy love story between a bee and a human. Okay, I can’t forgive that, I still find it weird and off-putting.

Bee Movie was a lot of fun. I would see it in theatres just to appreciate some fine animation and clever writing. You know, I would love to hear what children think of this film. They wouldn’t have this pre-conceived notion of Jerry Seinfeld and his type of humour. Maybe you should take your kids to see Bee Movie and then drop me a line and tell me what they thought. By the way, I am proud of the fact that I managed to write this review without resorting to bee puns. You’re welcome.

In case anyone is keeping count. This is my 100th blog._________(Send presents.)

American Gangster

You hear that buzzing sound? No, it’s not Bee Movie. It’s Oscar and that sound can be heard loud and clear all through American Gangster. Okay, that sounded better in my head. Let’s just say that come Academy Award time, there will plenty of love shown to American Gangster. Just putting Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe together seems brilliant. (Which is funny, because these two starred in Virtuosity twelve years ago and that one flopped.) But add in director Ridley Scott and you’ve got the makings of a classic American film. While watching the film, I was reminded of The Untouchables, Heat and The Godfather, and that’s not bad company to be around.

Of course, the reason to watch American Gangster is to see the powerhouse performances of two Hollywood heavyweights. While they both are captivating whenever they are on the screen, I think Denzel comes out as the winner. Maybe it’s because Washington’s portrayal of real-life Harlem druglord, Frank Lucas, is so finely tuned. Washington commands the screen every time he is on it. There’s a level of strength, confidence and preciseness that is almost mesmerizing. We know that Denzel can play the bad-ass thanks to Training Day, but here we see a very calm family man with bursts of violent rage. He draws you in before ripping the rug from under you. You can tell that Washington is having fun in this commanding role.

Russell Crowe is no slouch in American Gangster. Well, maybe appearance-wise, but not acting-wise. After 3:10 to Yuma, it appears that Crowe is having a great year. Playing Ritchie Roberts, the dogged cop determined to take down Lucas and subsequent corrupt cops, Crowe has some great speeches throughout the film. Seen as the only truly honest cop on the force, I find myself rooting for Roberts just as much as I’m rooting for Lucas. Crowe has a great disheveled look and makes me glad I never had to wear clothes like that.

Keeping up with Washington and Crowe are some other fine actors. I’m loving the choices of Chiwetel Ejiofor (Serenity, Children of Men). He does a great job as Frank Lucas’ pimped out brother Huey. Josh Brolin is perfectly slimy as corrupt cop, Det. Trupo. I’ll even forgive the writers for making him do the most cliché villainous act near the end of the film. I was most shocked by the performance of Ruby Dee as Mama Lucas. She has this one scene with Washington that screams Oscar nomination.

The writing is pretty crisp in American Gangster. There is some profound advice given throughout the film and almost every word out of Denzel’s mouth is the pinnacle of slickness. Of course, some the best dialogue comes with the long-awaited meeting between Washington and Crowe. Like Pacino and DeNiro in Heat, these two professionals pull out the big guns and hit their scene out of the park. (Sorry, for the mixed metaphor.)

The only thing detracting from this film is its length. Now unlike other films, I do believe they need each minute to tell the full story , but is does get a bit uncomfortable at 157 minutes. Luckily, the big scene is near the end, so I didn’t mind my butt being numb for the sake of great acting. This is one you’re going to want to see on the big screen. People are going to be talking about this one. This is the current front-runner for best picture. Like The Departed last year, American Gangster is the pitch-perfect film with a gritty story and phenomenal performances. There’s that buzzing sound again.

The Darjeeling Limited

I was reading some reviews of Wes Anderson’s new film The Darjeeling Limited, and someone had the balls to say that it was too much like Anderson’s previous efforts. We should be so lucky. Wes Anderson is truly gifted when it comes to filmmaking. His stories have meaning, his visuals are playful and engaging, his points of view are outstanding and his characters are quirky, and not just for quirky sake as many copycats have done. In Royal Tenenbaums and Life Aquatic and even Rushmore, Anderson dealt with a large cast of characters that beautifully demonstrated the many different strands of human nature. With The Darjeeling Limited, like Bottle Rocket, Anderson focuses on less people to really explore human emotion fully.

Before watching The Darjeeling Limited, the audience is treated to Anderson’s short film Hotel Chevalier starring Jason Schwartzman and the amazing Natalie Portman. The thirteen minute scene beautifully shows the end of love in both its quiet moments and its sharp dialogue. Not only is this film great on its own, but it wonderfully sets up Shwartzman’s Jack character in The Darjeeling Limited. I almost wish that Anderson made two more short films to set up the other brothers.

The actors in this film are phenomenal. Owen Wilson plays the controlling oldest brother, Francis. With lists, questions and promises, Wilson hilariously takes on a fatherly role despite his brothers’ objections. While his head bandages were distracting at times, they served the film as a metaphor of his injured spirit. Justified quirkiness at its best. Jason Schwartzman quietly and strangely plays the youngest brother, Jack, who is drawn to love to fill his void. Not your typical romantic lead, Schwartzman’s ‘smooth’ moves reminded me of his Rushmore days hitting on Rosemary. Rounding out the trio of brothers is Wes Anderson newcomer, Adrien Brody (The Pianist, King Kong, The Village). Brody perfectly plays the middle child, Peter, with his contempt for his older brother and his condescension for his younger brother. His selfish nature is wonderfully shown through his kleptomania and a wonderfully told flashback sequence. These three actors are amazing and fun to watch as they go on their spiritual and emotional journey.

Like all Wes Anderson films (this one also written by Roman Coppola and Schwartzman), The Darjeeling Limited uses metaphor, quirks, clever one-liners and fascinating characters to tell his story. I do find it interesting how most of his stories deal with rich individuals who have a hard time expressing themselves. While the spiritual journey begins on the train, it doesn’t truly get started until long afterwards. Even when you think they have learned all there is to know, Anderson takes you even further. Sure, you may see through the symbolism behind the large amount of baggage that gets carried around throughout the film, but there are plenty of subtle symbolic details also thrown into the storyline.

Along with great acting and a compelling story, The Darjeeling Limited is wonderfully filmed. Anderson has a unique point of view when it comes to his camera work. His close-ups, slow-motion and tracking shots are par for the course, but in this film he also excelled at panning. Each pan of the camera is for a specific purpose. Sometimes it’s played for laughs but many times it shows growth with each movement of the camera. Of course, it helps the film to be shot using the brilliantly colourful setting of India. The landscapes, the building and even the people bring a heightened sense of beauty to this film.

I love Wes Anderson pictures, so I obviously think everyone should see his next chapter of great filmmaking. Granted, The Darjeeling Limited is hard to find, since it’s not playing at every big theatre, but I feel it is definitely worth your time. With great acting, great cinematography and great storytelling, how could you go wrong? And if that’s not enough for you, Bill Murray is in it.

Dan in Real Life

Watching Dan in Real Life is the equivalent of being curled up on the couch eating comfort food. I can totally see people doing just that once this film comes out on DVD. Dan in Real Life is nothing profound or pretentious; it’s not a study of exceptional acting or cinematography, but it’s not crap either. With all these Oscar worthy films coming up, it was kind of nice to clean the slate with this charming story.

The plot of Dan in Real Life is pretty standard. Among some touching moments hear and there, it definitely has a sitcom feel to it. In fact, during the film, I was reminded of the Friends story arc where Chandler was in love with Joey’s girlfriend causing him to pine for her, cross the line and end up spending Thanksgiving in a box. The storyline of Dan in Real Life is pretty predictable with all its convenient situations and tidy ending. Maybe that’s what made it so comfortable to watch; I didn’t have to think all that much. One of the things that I found strange however is the use of the bowling alley to show the playful side of love. Did the Bowling Association of America strike a deal with Hollywood? I haven’t seen this much bowling since Kingpin or the TV show Ed. This fall alone bowling is featured in Across the Universe, Lars and the Real Girl, Martian Child, and Dan in Real Life. I guess there’s a whole new bowling craze sweeping across the America.

Dan in Real Life is written and directed by Peter Hedges who also gave us the charming Hugh Grant piece, About a Boy. In both films we see that Hedges is quite adept at making realistic relationships between children and adults. The three young girls in this film were great. Alison Pill plays the oldest daughter who tries to be the only responsible member of the family. Brittany Robertson is the passionate middle child who yells out all the things parents don’t want to hear. Marlene Lawston (Flightplan) is the youngest who is not only cute as a button but also shows a vulnerability that will tug at your heartstrings.

Of course, Steve Carell gives another great performance. He gets to play up the slapstick while still engaging us in the character’s tragic life. It’s hard to compare his character of Dan Burns to anything he’s done previously. Dan is not over-the-top or wonderfully subtle, he just exists beautifully in this sitcomy world. The other actors in the cast also do a fine job. I found it weird that Juliette Binoche (Chocolat, The English Patient) would do this type of film, but she gives a pleasant performance as Marie, the love interest. Dane Cook is tolerable in this movie; it may even make you forget his work in Good Luck Chuck.

With some nice camera work here and there, some fine acting, some great comedic and heart-warming moments and a short running time, Dan in Real Life is an enjoyable, comfortable film. This is one for the DVD player on a night where you don’t want to think too hard and just relax. It’s nice to have these breaths of fresh air now and again.

Fearless 2008 Fall TV Prediction

While I’m loving the new shows Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money this year, I will share my prediction for the best new show next fall. It’s called Dollhouse. How do I know it’s going to rock? Its creator is Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel, Firefly) and it stars Eliza Dushku (Buffy, Angel, Tru Calling). Need I say more? Maybe a little. It’s a sci-fi drama. Unfortunately, it’s on Fox so it probably won’t last that long. Already looking forward to next fall. I’m giddy with excitement and anticiaption. By the way, I'm loving the Buffy Season 8 comics. Angel Season 6 comics are coming soon! I'm in Joss Whedon heaven. Please forgive the fan-crush.