Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

A Review:

In the very first minutes of the fourth installment of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas's infamous action series we see a brown fedora hat roll along the dusty floor of a military warehouse. Then a group of devious commies toss someone from a trunk onto that same dusty floor. We know who this person is, of course, even if the camera doesn't reveal his face to us immediately. The person places the hat on this head and then we get the close-up - it's none other than Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford), back in the game. We then get a snippet of dialogue between Indy and his old pal Mac (Ray Winstone) about how some of their close calls back during WWII and how things were far easier in the "old days".

This exchange is important because the film is determined to let the audience know that they know that we know Harrison Ford is old. Yes, we know he's old. We're addressing it! Right now! That's why this movie is in the fifties! The fifties, damn it! Moments later when our chief villain, minxish KGB agent Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), asks Indy if he has any last words (and I'll let you decide if Indy really utters his last words in the first reel) he retorts: "I like Ike." Oh, because Dwight Eisenhower is President. I get it! Ha ha, Steve and George, you rapscallions!

All right, I'm starting this out a little mean spirited and I shouldn't be. I apologize. Yes, they hammer home the age and time a little too much to start but once it got rolling I kinda' dug the whole thing. Ford is not afraid to let himself look old. When he's dressed up in his professor clothes with his gray hair not obscured by that notorious hat, yeah, he kinda' shows his age. And, in fact, I like the way Spielberg initially uses the 1957 timeframe to add a little zip to the film's early action sequences.

In fact, once Indy escapes the clutches of the commies (for the first time) at the warehouse he ends up in a place about to be done in by a thing, but I won't say what place or what thing because I found them to be unexpected and, thus, quite enjoyable.

After that second close escape (that's two in about 15 minutes if you're keeping score at home) Indy gets questioned by some FBI agents who are nervous about what transpired with those dastardly Russians and then he returns to his idyllic college campus where Jim Broadbent has taken over for Denholm Elliot (who played Marcus Brody and passed away three years after "The Last Crusade") as the Dean. But after his run-in with the FBI Indy is essentially fired and decides to pack up and head for London via New York.

But before Indy's train can make it out of the station Mutt Williams (Shia Labeouf) dressed like Marlon Brando in "The Wild One" zooms up on a motorcycle and then takes Indy to a 50's styled soda fountain (where Ford really looks old) and lays out the framework for what will become the movie's primary plot points - namely, a lost city of gold and the mysterious crystal skull of the title.

After a clever chase on Mutt's motorcycle, the "old man" and the "kid" light out for South America in pursuit of the skull and along the way they will run back into Irina and the nefarious Russians, of course, and they will track down an old friend of Indy and Mutt named Oxley (John Hurt) who also had been on the prowl for the skull and, sure enough, Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) turns back up, too, and it also turns out, lo and behold, she's the mother of young Mutt. She seems to have been hap-hazardly written back in, almost materalizing out of thin air, as if Spielberg and Lucas didn't so much care how she got there as long as she was there. Though, when Marion asks Indy about other girls and he replies, "They weren't like you, honey", I wanted to raise my hand as if testifying at church and exclaim "Amen!" Good riddance, Kate Capshaw and blonde Nazi! Marion is the only "Indiana Jones" girl who ever mattered. End of story.

That said, Allen is fine, not spectacular, though she isn't necessarily given a bunch to do, and Labeouf holds his own, and Hurt mumbles a lot (he's lost his marbles as a result of the crystal skull, you see), and Ford is just doing what he does, but the finest performance of the film undeniably belongs to Blanchett. She is downright marvelous. The prior three Indiana Jones films had no scenery chewing villains to speak of (admittedly, I kind of liked that) but the fourth time out Blanchett chews away. Sean Connery aside, Ford was never given such a strong supporting member off of whom he could play.

The sceenplay was credited to David Koepp (story by Lucas and Jeff Nathanson) and I have to admit when I first saw that prior to the film's release it troubled me. Koepp was also the writer of Spielberg's 2005 "War of the Worlds", a movie that started out, I thought, sensationally and got worse and worse as it progressed. Well, guess what happens to "Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"? Once they arrived in South America it really did feel like more of the same but without anything new added in. The finale was a bit of yawner. The mythology of the new one didn't feel so mythic.

And here's another problem I have with current action movies and I don't think I realized it until I re-watched "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on Thursday to get ready for "The Crystal Skull" on Friday. Why can't we let our action movies be dramatic anymore? Why can't we let them be serious? There is ever hardly a moment in current day adventure films when you feel as if the main characters are truly in danger. All action sequences now are layered with cute quip after cute quip and it seems as if half of them build to punchlines rather than close escapes. In "The Crystal Skull" there is a chase scene between two, sometimes three, trucks and while some of it is exciting (though definitely not the part when Shia Labeouf suddenly turns into George of the Jungle) there's trusty Marion driving one of the trucks and coaching her son during his swordfight and looking almost as if she's out cruising the highway on a summer's day. I should have been clenching the side of my seat during this sequence, not chuckling every other five seconds.

I don't mind elaborate setpieces that push the boundaries of what human beings can actually do but at least make me think one of the characters for whom I'm cheering might not make it out of this situation alive. Otherwise, why am I watching? To see some way cool CGI? Perhaps that works for other people, but not for me.

Rory, you have the floor.

-Nick

A Response:

I give credit to Spielberg, the man can direct an action sequence. The elaborate sequence at story's opening in a "familiar" warehouse is of course over the top but never lacks for excitement. The Indiana Jones films have always been filled with a healthy does of the unbelievable. This latest film is no different. Rogue Russian agents attempting to uncover an artifact that will help them take over the world. The pulp action that can only exist in a movie isn't what makes this film problematic.

It seems more the rather dull story is to blame. Reports are that the story went through numerous iterations over the 19 years it has been since the last film. Sure the script may be credited to David Koepp but it feels like it was written by one hundred scribes. After its brief desperate efforts at the opening to set the scene in the fifties (Shia LaBeouf in full on Marlon Brando attire in his first appearance is pretty bad but the most painful moment for me is a greaser-jock fist fight in a malt shop) and to establish that our hero has aged a bit, they basically abandon both themes pretty quickly.

There are a number of what I'll call cameos in this film that are really painful and at time gratuitous. Apparently subtle nods to previous installments might be missed and have the seemingly idiotic audience that we are taken to be won't get it if we aren't reminded constantly. Which now that I think about it seems to be a real theme, as Nick mentioned. They constant need to remind us Indy is old or its the 50s and on and on. Throw in a handful of attempts to "explain" bits of the story which only raise more questions and you have much of the disaster that is this movie.

And into this mess, Harrison Ford is barely treading water. He seems to be lacking that amused joy he had in previous films despite not having lost a step in his ability to take a punch, fall from great heights and other feats. His latest side kick is Mutt (LaBeouf) and honestly he just isn't that interesting nor does he really click with Indy in the way that past sidekicks have. John Hurt is put in a role that requires almost nothing of him and is more sad than fun. And the long missed Karen Allen returns joyful and pleased (although decidedly sexless) but her character doesn't really mesh well with who she was in Raiders nor does she do much after her initial introduction.

The only one who appears to be having any fun and who is constantly fun to watch, is Blanchett. Yes she chews scenery but if she wasn't doing that then the whole movie might be worse than it is. She's carrying a heavy burden of keeping us from yawning between action sequences that although get bigger and longer as the film progresses also get more tedious and had me thinking "enough already".

To be fair (or at least in the interest of disclosure) I wasn't thrilled when I walked out of the theater but I wasn't as disappointed as I am now. With a few days to think about it all of the problems I noted (and those which Nick addressed as well) just started piling up. Again this is disappointment more than hate. Spielberg does shine at orchestrating an action sequence but the story falls flat and his attempts to conceal that with some boring and obvious plot twists and overly long action sequences.

I'm going to choose to remember Indy as he was in Raiders and pretend that the sequels never really happened.

-Rory

A Summary:

What's the old saying? Too many cooks spoil the broth? Too many chefs add too many spices and then the meatloaf tastes less like meat and more like loaf? Something like that? Well, on "The Crystal Skull", as you stated, Rory, you've got a lot of cooks adding their ingredients to the hotdish and, yeah, it feels like it.

I wonder if writers never really receive proper due regarding action movies. I think about what I would consider to be the best action film thus far of the decade, "Batman Begins". Yes, the movie looks good, and the action scenes are done well, and the acting is nearly uniformly outstanding, but the immense quality of the writing is what pushed it up into the realm of greatness. Every piece was crafted to fit in its place and so it built to something whereas "The Crystal Skull" felt like everything was tossed in a bowl and sloshed around. It gained no momentum. The stakes never increased. It just whirred along on one plateau, never kicked it up a notch.

Or perhaps action movies are starting to run out of places to go. Anymore I find myself entertained the most in action movies by things not typically thought of as action, like in "The Crystal Skull" when Indy winds up in the place about to be done in by the thing (I'm still not giving it away) or the look Cate Blanchett gives Ford when she's standing up on the back of the jeep during the extended chase in the jungle.

We all want different things from movies and I've stated and re-stated my dislike for getting exactly what you expect and a lot of "The Crystal Skull" is precisely that - exactly what you expected. Do with that information what you will.

-Nick

Definitely, Maybe

A Review:

Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) works at an ad agency which of course he hates. Will has recently received divorce papers. His only pleasure in life seems to be getting off work early two days a week to pick up his daughter from school. Will arrives at the school on a fateful day where seemingly only for plot purposes the school had given a sex education class to the young students. This causes Will's daughter Maya (Abigail Breslin) to start asking questions which Will tries delicately to answer. This leads Will eventually (again for not entirely clear or coherent reasons) to decide to tell his young daughter the details of his three real relationships in all there detail and how he ended up marrying Maya's mother.

The tale circles around three women. Emily (Elizabeth Banks) was Will's college sweetheart, Summer (Rachel Weisz) was his second serious relationship and April (Isla Fisher) was a long term friend who he also fell in love with. The story centers on Will and how all of these women came in and out of his life at various points all to the backdrop of the 1990s including such historically memorable moments as Clinton campaign of '92, the Monica Lewinsky scandal of the late '90s and other similar cultural milestones. This is all intercut with occasional returns to the present for discussion between Will and Maya in which he assures her that she is very important.

Such is the tale of this romantic comedy that is trying to break from the normal format of such films. Admittedly it succeeds in some of these attempts. The relationships and their gritty details all feel genuine especially the breakups which result from a range of betrayals. Each of the women is a fairly well developed character. Each has their charms and their drawbacks and Banks, Weisz and Fisher are all fun to watch on screen. Unfortunately it also fails on a number of fronts. The most glaring of which is that either because he is incapable of doing so or because of misdirection or miscalculation Ryan Reynolds just doesn't work. His defining quality seems to be blandness not exactly a quality that earns you a beautiful woman, let alone three.

It certainly should earn some props for dealing more realistically with divorce, sex and relationships than most but it all hinges on a very shaky premise. The idea that Will would tell this story mostly unedited to his young daughter. And honestly Breslin's preternaturally astute Maya was a bit annoying. She barely acts like a kid at all and somehow manages to root for a reunion with her parents and at the same time root for his success with an old love who isn't her mother.

I would like to make special mention of the always lively Isla Fisher. She radiates a certain amount of charm and likability that had me smiling and enamored any time she was on screen and she even did a respectable job with the few more dramatic moments they gave her. Rachel Weisz also did a rather admirable job balancing a character who was both ambitious and yet seemed to genuinely care for Will. Elizabeth Banks was perhaps the least developed of the three but she did well with what she was given. Ultimatly the film shines best and brightest when the loves of Will's life are on screen.

I'd like to recommend this movie as a sort of innocent fluff work that is enjoyable and mindless. Sadly what it has to recommend itself is outweighed by what irritated me about it. In fact that last act which traditionally is when we are rooting for the happy reunion of the couple I was irritated by its seemingly lazy chain of coincidences that wrapped up story line after story line. Did the writer use up all his creativity in the first two acts? Was this film much longer and had to be cut down? I couldn't even work up enough to care how it ended. Which I say is pretty damning for a romantic comedy.

Cordially, Rory

A Response:

Rory, I think we're in agreement on a lot of things about this one. The three female leads are all solid but Isla Fisher as April steals the show. I feared she was an actress who would never branch out from the type of role we saw her playing in Wedding Crashers but she comes alive in this one. It's a personal bias, naturally, but I liked her the moment she turns up wearing a Smiths tee shirt and downplaying all of Will's beliefs and by the time we see her smoking, well, I was gone with Isla. I was rooting for her to win the whole way.

I also liked Kevin Kline as hard-drinking, constantly-babbling author Hampton Roth. I honestly didn't even realize it was Kline when he answered the door. It took me a minute or two to pick up on it.

Romantic comedies also tend to bridge the Meet Cute to Being in Love via a single scene or, God help us, nothing beyond a montage but this film spreads itself out over several years and by doing so all the relationships between Will and the three loves of his life progress so much more realistically. Also, massive bonus points for understanding that divorce does not automatically mean an ending cannot be happy. There is that line near the conclusion that Will says to his daughter was corny but I still kinda' liked it.

You're absolutely correct, though, Rory in that Reynolds lead performance is the fatal flaw. This guy brings no weight to the table, no gravitas. He's just so blah. His inability to convince makes all the good stuff around him a little less convincing as well. Why are all these beautiful, cool women so in love with him? Do you agree that Derek Luke, saddled with the Best Friend role, would have been a better choice for Will?

One other thing I particularly found irritating was the need to include all sorts of "humorous" 90's trivia. You know, at one point Will has a "humorously" large cellphone and the internet is at one point "hilariously" seen running very slow and the film even works in a clip of a young George W. Bush. Seriously? They had to play that card? I don't like George W, either, but the forced reference to his idiocy had no place here. Leave that crap to Michael Moore.

And Abigail Breslin as Maya seemed to work as the surrogate for the screenwriter. She was spouting the romantic comedy formula out loud and maybe the writer's intention was to cut the formula off at the pass by doing so but I regret to say the formula still slipped through said pass. Nice try. It might have been a better idea to forgo the flashback structure. Sometimes you need to let the audience realize developments on their own without one of the characters announcing all the lessons we're supposed to be learning out loud.

Romantic comedies tend to be either formulaic or ambitious, though even if it does possess ambition it will usually contain some of the formula as well. Definitely, Maybe has a lot of formula, yes, but a nice supply of ambition to contradict it. That's why you could do better than this movie if you're looking for a romantic comedy, but you could do a whole lot worse. What might have been if they looked a little longer for a lead actor?

Best Regards,
Nick

Yes, I agree Derek Luke was much more interesting than Ryan Reynolds. I guess if you absolutely need to see a Romantic Comedy then this one won't have you gouging out your eyes and tearing out your hair. But it was still on the whole disappointing. I think a better lead might have saved it from most of my complaints. I suspect the whole use of the 90s as backdrop to the story had some deeper symbolic meaning but I just didn't care and yes the cutesy additions of 90s memorabilia was quite annoying.

Until Next Time,
Rory

Fathers and Sons

(Of course the compulsory spoiler warning is required and yes there will be spoilers in this post so you are so warned)

When Nick first suggested we copy this exercise from the New York Times, I racked my brain thinking of what scene I would write about. So many scenes are memorable from so many movies released last year. Naturally my first inclination was to pick a scene from my favorite movie of the year: No Country For Old Men. But which one? I actually chose one and wrote up a post on it. It was the scene when Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) confronts Carla Jean Moss (Kelly Macdonald) near the end of the movie.

But the more I thought about it, the more unsatisfied I was. Not with that scene which is incredibly well done. No, it was that it just didn't quite fit with the spirit of the exercise (or what I see as the spirit of it). If I were to pick a single scene of anything I saw this year I would choose Antonius Block (Max von Sydow) expressing his crisis of faith in Ingmar Bergman's Seventh Seal. A movie I only saw for the first time in 2007.

And that would certainly be fitting for a year that saw the death of that great auteur. But truth be told I felt I sufficiently poured out my soul on that scene in my review (Seventh Seal). Besides this should be about films that were new. Films that inspire the kind of reaction that Seventh Seal did in me. Certainly the Coens' No Country For Old Men is an instant classic in film history and the scene with Carla Jean is damn good but when it I really think about it only one scene moved me as much as the scene in Seventh Seal.

I was only a little shocked that my reflection led me to Diving Bell and the Butterfly by Julian Schnabel. Its overall effort didn't impress me that much but there were a pair of scenes that I've thought about almost everyday since seeing it. And to me that's the spirit of this exercise. A scene you keep rolling over in your head and one you want to discuss with people. A scene that makes you reflect on life, love, happiness and all the other seemingly cliched notions of reflection.

I'm not sure what to think of the fact that the two scenes that resonate the most with me both involved the ever brilliant Max von Sydow. And perhaps part of the brilliance of both scenes is that they are in foreign languages (Swedish and French respectively) and require that much more acting than one in English might. Or maybe they just parallel thoughts I've had so closely that I feel some intimate connection.

Fathers and sons are a common trope to address in a narrative and this year certainly offered many takes on that trope. There Will Be Blood was intimately connected to Daniel Plainview's (Daniel Day Lewis) relationship with his adopted son H.W. (Dillon Freasier). No Country For Old Men opened with Ed Tom Bell's (Tommy Lee Jones) voice over that mentions his father and closes with a powerful description of a dream about his father. But the father and son scene I want to talk about is from The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

To discuss the scene I have in mind, I feel some setup is required and I must stress again that spoilers will be involved. Jean Dominique Bauby (Matthieu Almaric) has suffered a stroke and now has "locked in" syndrome. A condition which leaves a person with their full mental capacities but almost completely paralyzed. Bauby with the help of a speech pathologist learns an elaborate way of communicating which makes use of an alphabet arranged by frequency of use and the blinking of his left eye (the one thing he could move).

An early scene shows Bauby remembering the last time he saw his father. This scene shows us a fantastically real and realized relationship between a father and son which is not entirely whitewashed (Note the father's disapproval of his son leaving his wife for his mistress) and sets up an important point. The aging father who loves his son has trouble communicating these days. He loses track of his thoughts too easily.

Someone might think I'm cheating and describing two scenes but I find it absolutely impossible to separate the two. Without the early scene, the latter scene is simply not possible. Once Bauby has mastered the communication method, he can receive phone calls. With an assistant, he can hear questions and dictate responses to someone who can communicate them to the caller. You can imagine how complicated and difficult this would be for any caller. But now throw in an aging father who has trouble remembering his thoughts.

Papinou (Sydow) calls and after the procedure of communication is re-explained to him, the conversation begins. At first the tone is lighter. Papinou jokes about how both are trapped (he in his apartment because of age, Bauby in his own body). His questions are answered slowly and Papinou can't remember all the things he wanted to say and ask. It is also slowly clear that despite understanding his son can't talk, he didn't really understand that he wouldn't hear his son's voice. Slowly, Papinou breaks down. (Take special note of Almaric's response which must be conveyed solely with his eye - damn, I say, damn.)

How can Papinou connect with a son he can't see, touch or hear? Is he in a sense already dead? Morbid thoughts to be sure but undeniably floating around this scene. Papinou's tears as he confesses he can't communicate like this are heartbreaking. His thoughts are too cluttered and the loss of connection and the requirement of a third party are too much. His quick goodbye and hang up are just soul crushing.

I was tearful when this scene ended. Probably as close to full on bawling I've been in a long time. And you know what I'm not in the least bit ashamed to admit that. But what made me choose this scene and what makes it resonate? This scene speaks to me more than any other. As I've said I've thought about this scene probably once a day. So I've thought a lot about why this scene sticks with me. And its about fathers and sons.

This scene makes me think about my father. No, I wouldn't say our relationship is at all like Bauby and Papinou. I'd like to think we have a good relationship but if it was our relationship on screen I guess there would be a bit more good natured ribbing. There's also a good chance we'd both be drinking a beer or some Jameson's. My point being (I am getting to one) is that a really well done scene will make you reflect on your life (or so I think).

And a really powerful depiction of father and son such as this one had me reflecting on my own relationship with my father. What important aspect of human relationships doesn't this scene have? We see fatherly love in Papinou. We see his anxiety and his attempts to hold onto what is already fading. There is the question of mortality and the importance of every moment. Now Bauby's last memory with his dad was not one of regret (it's actually quite touching) but there is the very present reality that it is the last memory. No more laughs or sorrows can occur. And as memory fades it might be all that remains.

So yeah a scene like this makes me think about my dad. Not because he's ill (God forbid) and not because I have regrets. But because an on screen tragedy can remind you and cause you to reflect on how you're scene might go. A scene like this would inspire me to reconcile with my father if we were on the outs. It makes me want to talk to him more often (and I think we already talk quite frequently).

I just want to keep the positive memories flowing. I don't fully understand my own father's relationship with his father (I assume it was good but that is for him to share when, if and to whom he chooses of his own volition) but I always want my own relationship to be solid. Scenes like this remind you of what you have (or I suppose of what you don't).

Now I've gushed enough and I presume most of this has been an incoherent ramble. And I stand by this scene and its power and damn if I don't want to watch it again. Hell, I want to watch it with my father. And that is exactly what a truly powerful scene should do.

A Moment of Clarity

(Be wary of spoilers, friends. Be wary. But this is the one scene from cinema in 2007 that affected me the most and so I must press forward.)

The head nurse comes to Briony Tallis (played at this point in the film by Romola Garai) and advises a wounded French solider needs someone at his bedside and to hold his hand and offer conversation. Briony takes on the task. Once she is with the soldier we see he is not merely wounded but mortally so. These are his final minutes. He talks to her and as he does we recognize he does not know where he or who Briony is. "What is your name?" he asks. "Tallis," she tells him. "Do you love me?" he asks. "Yes," she says.

In the month since I first saw "Atonement" I've pondered from where my deep love of it comes. I think it's because I'm a writer. A paid writer? Well, no. Not yet. But being a writer has nothing to do with payment and if you think that's not true you're not a writer. Being a writer means you can't more than a couple days without writing for fear of getting edgy and freaking out. It means you tend to work out the issues of your life and convey your true feelings on paper rather than out loud. In the cases when you can convey them minus the written word it usually occurs to someone not directly related to the feeling you possess. You live with passion but said passion remains inside until written or until a moment when you simply can't hold it back any longer and it gushes forth. From the first moment we see Briony Tallis we know she is a writer (she is placing the finishing touches on her first play) and so what I've just said can work as a summation of her and so this is why I she is a movie character I will forever cherish.

"Have you ever been in love?" a fellow nurse asks Briony at one point. Briony says nay. "Not even a crush?" wonders the nurse and Briony confirms she did have a crush once. This would be Robbie (James McEvoy) who was a servant on Briony's estate when she was thirteen. Robbie loved Briony's older sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley) and upon watching Cecilia and Robbie share a romantic moment - "something she thinks she understands, but she doesn't" - Briony comes back to this when a rape involving other people happens on said estate. She accuses Robbie and he is taken to jail and, later, forced to enlist in the army. Cecilia essentially disowns her family after this ugly incident and becomes a nurse. And, in time, so does Briony. Is this to atone for the sins of the past? Or is she losing whatever identity she had even further? "Your name is Tallis", says the head nurse. "There is no Briony." Briony looks out the window and repeats the mantra. "There is no Briony."

And so soon she finds herself with the French soldier. A French soldier who suddenly takes the place of Robbie. And Cecilia. Their fates are staring Briony in the face courtesy of this man she does not know. "I love you," says Briony. And so she has loved someone. She just couldn't admit it. Not until now. She never realized how much wrong she'd done lo those many years ago to Robbie and her sister and her family. Not until now. She never got the blood on her face. Not until now.

The French soldier passes away and she shoots to her feet. "Briony," she says to him, though, of course, by now he can't hear. "My name is Briony." She didn't know who she was. Not until now.

"Atonement" is told on a monumental scale. It spans decades. And, oh yes, the tracking shot. Everyone's talking about the tracking shot. Tracking shot this, and tracking shot that, and the tracking shot is spectacular and worked to the hilt for me. But that isn't the soul of the film. No, the soul of the film rests in this scene. Why? Because she bears her soul to this person she doesn't know it allows her to realize what happened before and influences - whether real or imagined - all that is to come.

There Will Be Blood

A Review:

Prior to getting to the diatribe of this most-anticipated film I'd like to mention a couple things - 1.) This is the first time Cinematic Arena has delved into a strictly dramatic film, so God help us all. 2.) This is the first time probably since Rory the Movie Idiot and I slung popcorn at the infamous Wynnsong 16 movie theater many years ago that we watched a movie together. Luckily, there was no fist-fight. At least not yet.

Paul Thomas Anderson's newest film, set at the turn of the century and eventually a little later on, detailing one man's rise and fall inside the oil industry, returns to the form you may recall from "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia", which is to say it's drawn on a monumental canvas and reaches for the moon. He's got a lot to say, and says a lot of it well, but all of it? That's why Cinematic Arena exists, friends, to help you work through this as we work through it ourselves.

Daniel Day Lewis is Daniel Planview. The first time we see him he is alone and mining for silver. The fact that he is alone is key, as he is alone through the whole film even if there are other people at his side. He breaks his leg, pulls himself out from below ground, and before long we see he has returned to his work - this time digging for oil. He strikes it big, though another tragedy occurs as a man dies leaving his son orphaned. Daniel takes in the son and next time we see him he as essentially become what we'll call an oil tycoon.

Then the quietly eerie Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) emerges and advises Daniel of potential oil in his tiny California town of Little Boston. (Notice the shot as Paul and Daniel first meet. You see just the two of them, Paul enters the room, sits, and only then are we shown that there is a third man in the room.) The two men talk, the audience is riveted, and Daniel agrees to head out to Little Boston.

Once there Daniel and his adopted son camp out on the land of Sunday family where it seems Paul has vanished and his twin brother Eli (also played by Dano) who runs the Little Boston church surfaces. When Daniel discovers the oil he covets, he buys up nearly the entire town, and sets about building an oil well. At a ceremony for the first well Eli asks Daniel if he can "bless" the well, Daniel says yes, but then when the ceremony comes he reneges and gives his own blessing. And so a battle between the two unlikely opponents begins.

Based in part on Upton Sinclair's novel "Oil!" there is so much more to this movie that an entire review could consist simply of re-telling plot and so I feel I must pull up short of giving things away.

But some more things will be given away as any discussion of this film (and you'll understand when you see it) must include some giving away. So if you're wary of any further spoilers get the hell outta' this review right now.

I'm not one for blathering on about a filmmaker's point when I would rather be focusing strictly on the characters and what they do and how their choices affect them but when a film is so huge it leaves the word epic in the dust, well, it becomes a bit obvious, I think, the filmmaker does possess some intention of saying something to us. But what? There is the issue of capitalism at work, though not as much I would have thought going in, and the issue of God and faith. One man who didn't have much faith to begin with and slowly rests whatever faith he did have.

In fact, there are two showdowns between Daniel and Eli - one at Eli's church, one at Daniel's home - that would appear to be the crux of the film. Daniel is essentially forced into a baptism at Eli's church so he can gain land he needs to create a pipeline for his oil and from this point forward Daniel's greed and, I suppose, madness only grows.

Daniel Day Lewis is remarkable but, as I often say in regards to him, that goes without saying. Yet - yet! - some of the performance here rubbed me the wrong way. At the outset where he's just acting, no dialogue, and even deep into the second act of the film - especially the aforementioned baptism scene (which is brilliant-beyond-metaphors, and a scene no other actor working today could have made work in the day he did) - he's still amazing. But into the third act, as he becomes more wretched, more evil, more, more, and more, I think he started going overboard. Maybe Anderson was pushing him in that direction but for the first time in my life I wanted to call out to the screen, "Dial it down, Daniel!" (I didn't, of course, because he probably would have broken character and come out of the movie screen and picked me up and thrown me out into the street but never mind). Toward the very end there's a bit of dialogue where he shouts with such force that spit dribbles out of his mouth but the spit just looked calculated. It looked as if they had to do several takes so they could get the spit in the shot. The performance at the point ceased to be a performance. They were turning screws on us.

Paul Thomas Anderson has gone past over-the-top before and I haven't minded it. His biblical downpour of frogs in "Magnolia" to cleanse the streets of L.A. was capable of inspiring a "what the f---?" from the audience (I know because the person sitting one seat over from me said it) but it worked for me. Why? I never felt as if it was Paul Thomas Anderson up there in the heavens releasing these frogs to wrap up his sprawling film. The way everything had been established and set up it felt completely right.

The end is what will ceaselessly be discussed and, to be honest, this movie stopped working for me earlier than the end. (I didn't even mention Daniel's brother showing up, which felt like a contrivance necessary for Daniel to get a few words the script wanted him to say off his chest.) I felt like we were just watching a show. I felt like it was merely the director pulling his actors on strings from the scenes to get them to do what he wanted them to do to act out whatever it was he was trying to say. This end is made to divide people, and maybe saying what I've said will open me up to the proverbial "you didn't get it" blather, and that's just fine with me. Richard Schickel's review at Time Magazine has a completely different take on the end than me and since he writes for Time, well, he must know better than me. He called Lewis's work at the end "the most explosive and unforgettable 10 or 15 minutes of screen acting I have ever witnessed." I don't mind the hyperbole because I myself am prone to it and delight in it but I cannot agree, Mr. Schickel. I don't care what Anderson and Lewis are trying to say because the way they're saying it just seemed too in-your-face, too look at how craaaaazy we've gone! I liked some of the movie - I liked some of the movie a lot - but as a whole I was disappointed.

Oh, but the music's really, really good.

-Nick

A Response:

With the exception of Gone Baby Gone this was my most highly anticipated movie of the year. With Affleck's film it had a wide release and I managed to resist my Friday morning routine of reading every review I can get my hands on. There Will Be Blood was more problematic. Once reviews started popping up from the likes of David Denby and others, I couldn't resist reading. I read a lot of reviews, all glowing, many perplexed by the end. I also read a lot of interviews with Day Lewis and P.T. Anderson and generally gobbled up any information to do with this film. Oh and I probably watched the trailer at least once a week for a solid ten weeks.

So the excitement I had as Nick and I stood in a long line at the theater was almost un-containable. So much that I did not care that the film was nearly sold out. We were seeing this movie. This resulted in us being in the second row, approximately 2.5 feet from the screen. The only way i could see the screen properly was to scoot out to the edge of the seat, my knees crushed against the seat in front of me, my neck tilted sideways and pressed into the back of the seat cushion. Suffice to say taking in the full scope of the cinematography would be difficult. And at over two and half hours, my body was going to be put to the test.

Eager anticipation and bodily pain were the emotion and sensation I had when the film started. Could any film live up to that kind of pressure? This one started out with potential to do so. The first half hour of watching Day Lewis' Plainview work in silver mine with no dialog just the soundtrack and the sounds of work were just about as mesmerizing as it gets. And after a short stint showing Plainview striking it rich, we jump ahead to 1911 and to the real meat of the story. The smooth talking affecting Plainview was the perfect follow-up to the isolation I was left with after those opening scenes.

I'm generally not one for giving kudos to child actors but damn if there haven't been some fine performances by young thespians this year. Saoirse Ronan was the best part of Atonement and There Will Be Blood gives us a wonderful performance by Dillon Freasier. Half of my enjoyment of watching Day Lewis was actually in watching Freasier react along side him. An orphan who looks on with adoration at his father but still has that innocence of youth. And he seems to play the key role in the degeneration of Plainview from humanity.

I have to disagree with you Nick that the capitalism isn't as prevalent as one might think. It's practically smothering. Plainview is competition. Granted he reflect more the modern notions of capitalism than say capitalistic thought in 1911 but in the end I think Anderson is really making a film about today, even if its set 70 to 90 years in the past. The other prevalent ideology is radical religious fervor. Again more like a reflection of the time we live in. The problem is, and its the problem with any film that reduces a character to a symbol is it gets very tiresome, very fast. And these ideologies so heavy handed began to drain my energy.

At first the confrontations between Paul Dano and Day Lewis were riveting. Watching the two smash metaphorical heads like two rutting deer. But as their antagonism drags on and on and their extremism increases, it becomes a little stale. I actually wasn't that impressed with the baptism scene, Nick. It just felt flat. Not to mention that whole thing was set up very early and the payoff comes too late. And the brother subplot. It's utterly useless. It doesn't even make sense given the path the character has taken.

And that is really too bad because it is in this subplot that my favorite line from the trailer occurs. And what seemed like the center of a powerful scene was actually the center of an arbitrary and trite scene. And then there is what critics are calling the film's coda. Leaping ahead to 1927, Plainview now a Citizen Cane type recluse sits alone in a cavernous mansion. I can't even begin to figure out what that final scene between Dano and Day Lewis is about. I've heard it praised and perplexed. I've read it excused away and not one of those answers is satisfying. I've been thinking on it for a week and I can't find anything that is satisfying.

Still I agree with Nick, I lost interest long before the end so the fact that it was disappointing doesn't bother me too much. Still the idea that you could end the film with Plainview losing all his wealth in say the Stock Market Crash of 1929 seems like it would be fitting for his character. Oh well, you can't regret an end that wasn't made. Or can you?

-Rory

A Follow-Up:

Rory, you make an interesting point. Did we build this movie up too much? I confessed to you as we set for the theater how excited I was and I'd been waiting for it since the moment I read Lewis and Anderson had joined forces. But then I've built up other movies to colossal proportions and a good number of them not only met those expectations but also surpassed them. So, speaking only for myself, I don't think the hype inside my own mind caused it to stink any worse than it did.

I do have to give credit to Paul Thomas Anderson for making a film divisive enough that it will probably be poured over and argued about for years and years. Upon seeing it and thinking about it I had to turn to some other reviewers to see what sense they were able to make of the film, most especially in regards to the conclusion.

(Listen, people, you've got to see this movie if for no other reason than to see the end. No one, no matter how articulate, no matter how talented with the written word, could ever describe it in print. It must be witnessed, for better or worse.)

You either love it or hate it. It's such a generic saying but, man, I just don't believe there's any other way to put it. No one alive could possibly get to the conclusion of this film and merely say, "That was fun" or "I got my money's worth on that one."

In school I was terrible at algebra. Absolutely terrible. None of it made any sense to me. It still doesn't. I'd sit and stare at one algebraic equation for hours, trying to decipher how to solve it, and come up empty every time. No matter if someone explained it to me or not I'd just scratch my head, confused, realizing this subject of algebra was something I could not grasp and didn't really care to grasp.

"There Will Be Blood" is an algebraic equation.

- Onward & Upward, Nick

Forthcoming

Inspired by the NYT reviewers Manohla Dargis, A.O. Scott and Stephen Holden who each recently took to the task of writing on scenes that were memorable from last year, Nick and I both wish to do this on our little site. So sometime soon expect a post of two from each of us describing what each of us felt was a scene so memorable that it still has us thinking about it.

The Golden Compass

A Review:

In a parallel world (where people's souls exist as creatures outside their bodies as sort of spirit animals and the world is a combination of magic, technology and 19th century architecture) is where the story in The Golden Compass takes place. A secretive group called the Magisterium is working on a plot to maintain their control over everyone. Meanwhile Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig) is at the forefront of scientific discovery and is attempting to travel to parallel universes. His young niece Lyra (Dakota Blue Richards) may be a prophesied girl who will be important in a great war.

An agent in the Magisterium, Ms. Coulter (Nicole Kidman) takes an interest in Lyra which results in Lyra eventually on an adventure north to save her childhood friend. She has with her a golden compass (also called an alethiometer) which allows her to know things. She is joined on her quest by a band of sea people, witches, a talking polar bear and a pilot called Lee Scoresby (Sam Eliot).

And if you were wondering if that might possibly be the most ludicrous plot summary you've read in some time well let me assure you that is the best I could do with what was going on in this movie. Now that the plot is sufficiently in your head, lets get down to the nitty gritty. Is it worth your time? I guess that would depend on what the film-maker's intent was. Because if Chris Weitz fully intended me to laugh at times out loud at how absurd and stupid this movie was, then I guess yeah it is worth seeing. If that was not his intent (and I suspect it was not) then no. I'd suggest avoiding it like the plague.

I read a lot about the controversy of this film before I saw it. So I read that the book (part of a trilogy) written by Philip Pullman is essentially an attack on organized religion. Thus the evil group is the Magisterium, which is the word the Catholic church uses for its official doctrine. The film is being boycotted by some Christian groups and there was lots of concern for how much of the anti-religious rhetoric would be in the film. Perhaps if I had not read all about this the film might have played different. But as it stands the film plays pretty poorly on the message and pulls its punches frequently.

There is a bear fight sequence late in the film that is clearly supposed to be this big important moment. Sadly I was laughing the most during this scene of all the scenes that had come before. The CGI bears and the horrendous dialog was just to much. In the great climactic moment I actually couldn't hold back my laughter and cackled madly into the half filled theater which I'm sure upset quite a few people.

As far as story goes, not much of interest is going on. The soundtrack is so overbearing that I was actually annoyed especially in really dramatic scenes. How did I know they were really dramatic scenes? Because the score would swell and crash down as if pounding you in the head with drum sticks. Well what about the acting? There is an abundance of acting talent in the film. Daniel Craig, Nicole Kidman, great character actor Sam Eliot, Ian McKellen voices the bear, Eva Green, all are in the film.

All are also seemingly telephoning in their performances. Craig is barely in the film (I assume his role is more important in the later books). Kidman falls flat as the evil agent of the Magisterium. Sam Eliot is, well, Sam Eliot. Saddest of all is probably the great and venerable McKellan who is reduced to being the voice of a bear who utters the tritest of warrior code sayings on a regular basis. Oh and by the way, there is a cameo by Christopher Lee.

Wait, what? A film released by New Line Cinema based on a fantasy trilogy and has roles for both a sage like McKellan and an evil Lee. This sounds familiar. Did they black mail them? Are they that desperate to convince us that this is even remotely comparable to the Lord of the Rings trilogy?

post script: the spirit familiars in the film are called demons but everything I've read says they were daemons. Yes, daemon does eventually give us the word demon but it shouldn't be pronounced demon, it should be pronounced die-moan. That's just the loser classicist in me. Second thing, also classics related. The alethiometer shouldn't tell the truth, it should measure the truth. That's what its root words mean.

- Rory

A Response:

For me the finest moment of the whole film came right at the start when Lyra's friend is being bullied and she shoos the bullies away by telling of the curse supposedly wrought on the gate and anyone that passes. Of course, it turns out the curse doesn't exist but it demonstrates her quick wit and her determination. I liked that. I thought it was sweet. Little did I know that was as good as it would get.

I don't think I disliked it, Rory, as much as you, but I certainly was not overwhelmed or even semi-highly entertained. I did think Dakota Blue Richards gave a very good performance as Lyra. Child performances are hit-or-miss but I thought she was the rock that kept the movie from falling to pieces. I also really liked when she entered the hold of gyptians' ship and looked at all of them looking back at her and declaring, "What are you looking at?" (For what it's worth I thought Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman were also good. Craig, as you say, was barely in it but solid when he was onscreen and I thought Kidman did a decent job of portraying the icy stepmother-type role.)

Of course, what would a review of "The Golden Compass" be without a mention of the talking polar bears. I've gone on record as saying I should have no interest in seeing a movie with talking polar bears and yet for some reason the talking polar bears seemed to intrigue me in this case and whatever it was that caused that intrigue I hope never turns up again because, yeah, I'm just not a fan of talking polar bears in movies. Even if they're voiced by Ian McKellen. Again, the best part of the "big" polar bear showdown was the reaction shots of Richards as she watched her favorite polar bear in all the land do battle. (There's also Eva Green who I kept forgetting was in the movie and then would suddenly pop in to.....except now I'm forgetting why she was in the movie when she was in it.)

And what of the end? That last scene when they essentially sit there in the flying ship and

give us a beat-by-beat breakdown of all the adventure to come in the next movie? I mean, this isn't so much of an open-ending as an out-loud pitch to the audience to come back for the second installment. You can hear the director off-camera as they're saying their lines going: "See what you'll miss out on if you don't buy a ticket for the sequel? Please come back. Please."

Sorry, Mr. Weitz. But I think what you've got here are two audience members who won't be back.

- Nick


Final thought:

I'll grant that Dakota Blue Richards did do a nice job. I will not grant you the Kidman praise. I was generally unimpressed by her. Eva Green was a witch or something. Or perhaps more accurately an expository device (she tells of the prophecy) and a deus ex machina (who magically, no pun intended, shows up in the climactic battle sequence?). The end was preposterously inane. Here's hoping its performance cancels any sequels.

-Rory

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

The follow-up (not the sequel) to 1998's "Elizabeth" finds Cate Blanchett returning to the title role for which she earned an Oscar nomination. This time around director Shekhar Kapur focuses on the eventful year of 1585. King Philip of Spain, a smidgen unhappy that a Protestant queen rules England, is attempting to supplant her with her Catholic cousin and if that ruse should fail, well, the infamous Spanish Armada is being prepped to strike out and settle the score with the Queen. Meanwhile, back at home, Elizabeth is being pressed by her closest advisor (Geoffrey Rush) to marry because if she's marries then she - the Virgin Queen - could have a child and if she has a child then they would have to endure no more talk of that Catholic cousin of hers taking over. Cue Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen)! He has returned from the new world, where he has named a region (i.e. Virginia) for her. Elizabeth finds her drawn to Raleigh but, alas, so is young Elizabeth Throckmorton (Abbie Cornish), a member of the Queen's court, and soap-operaish intrigue is bound to play out.

Did I tell you 1585 was eventful?

"Elizabeth" seems to have its eye on being an action-epic, complete with sumptuous visuals, lavish costumes, and thunderous performances. And it is, kinda'. All three things I mentioned can be checked off the list but there seems to be something missing. I was enjoying the movie richly at the start but the deeper we got into it, the more my enjoyment faded.

None of my dismay is Blanchett's fault. She is just as good as she was the first time around in this role. Not many actresses could pull off playing a Queen. Why? You've gotta' strike that difficult balance between royalty and, in private, still somewhat of a regular person. But not too much of a regular person because you know for a fact you're not. Owen is good, too, but I wish heartily the screenplay hadn't made him a walking proverb. Every other line of his is something like, "Why worry about tomorrow when all we have is today?" The King Philip we find here may as well have swung in on a chandelier from an old episode of Zorro. The only one who is about on par with Blancett is Samantha Morton as Mary, the wily Catholic cousin. She chews scenery but doesn't chew it too fiercely as to overdo it.

Granted, I don't know that much about English history, and I'm sure someone who does could pick this thing apart. I do know that apparently Walter Raleigh didn't steer a burning ship directly into the Spanish Armada but supervised this from the shore. Of course, that's not quite as dramatic, is it? So I had no problem with the Raleigh of the film being aboard the flaming ship. But, man, was this sequence boring to watch. I mentioned the film seemed intent on being an epic and you would assume England's defeat of the Spanish Armada would lend itself rather easily to epicness but Kapur botches it. Raleigh's steering of his ship into the enemy seemed about as authentic as the production of the same event in a high school play.

Do I recommend this movie? Well, Blanchett's work is worth the ticket price if you're the type of person who can get into a film solely because of the acting. But if you're looking for an accurate re-telling of history, you probably want to avoid it. And if you're looking for a swashbuckling adventure with some soap-opera mixed in, go to Netflix and add "Captain Blood" to your queue instead.

- Regards, Nick


A Response:

I probably know as much about English history as Nick and yet I can't help but wonder about one glaring problem with "Elizabeth." I know for a fact the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, not 1585. This should give you a sense of the absurd world we are entering when watching the film. Not that the compression of time isn't sometimes a dramatic necessity. Besides this film doesn't really want to be about history, it wants to be about people. In any event, since how time passes in this film is not entirely clear (we get one date at movie's open informing us it is 1585) it may not be historical compression at all but rather neglect to orient the audience that the time passing was years not days, weeks or even months.

Above I used the word absurd, Nick used the word sumptuous. These seem about right. This film wants to be epic and hits on absurd. Not that being absurd is necesarily a bad thing. Sometimes it makes a film that would otherwise be intolerable quite fun to watch, even if that wasn't the intention of the director. At times the film is quite bland, visually attractive to be sure with the cavernous palace sets and the menagerie of court clothing but unsure of what it truly wants to be all that visual feasting is muted.

There are times when the film is quite boring and tried my patience. Sad to say this was frequently when Clive Owen is on screen because I agree, Nick, all he was allowed to do was spout trite aphorisms. There are those moments when the film tries desperately to show a human side to the austere virginal queen letting us know that there was a woman behind the image who wanted what all women (and men to be sure) want: love and happiness. And so we get these scenes of extreme intimacy to the private life of the queen well played by Blanchet but ultimately hollow.

I'll cite one example, the queen surrounded by her female court is watching them dance, while Raleigh (Clive Owen) watches on. She decides he should dance as well, and unable to act on her own desires commands him to dance with her favorite attendant. And as she watches on with their awkward dance, the audience aware that the two dancers have recently become lovers, Blanchett looks at them and knows and a vein of jealousy can be seen. How the hell does she know? Queenly intuition? Blanchett's face is pitch perfect but where is the motivation?

There is an amazing cast here of English actors here: Geoffrey Rush, Owen, Blanchett, Rhys Ifans (Rhys Ifans, holy cow I didn't see that coming), Tom Hollander and Samantha Morton. Nick, you noted that Morton comes close to matching Blanchett but I'll go and commit heresy here and say she was better. Sometimes less is more for an actor and Blanchett has to run the gamut of emotions, while Morton as Mary Stuart gets to revel in her characters indignation that she is not queen. Tom Hollander bizarrely watches her at times almost in love?

I don't think I'm getting across the absurdness of the movie. Again at times deliciously absurd, such as the clear message this film sends. England (Protestantism) saved us, indeed Western Civilization from the dreadful curse of Spain (Roman Catholicism). And not only that but God was actually on Elizabeth's side. And we know this because of the countless shots of Elizabeth in churches being back lit by the golden rays of the sun as she wears her white face paint and white virginal gowns instilling an angelic image in her.

Absurd? How about that final defeat of the armada, we get cuts to Spain where Philip prays by a lone candle that is dangerously close to blowing out or the symbolic white horse on one of the ships. What in the world is that horse about?

At times I had the most pleasurable of grins as this movie was going, trying not to laugh out right and yet not hating the movie just amused in a good way. The performances are strong, the story a bit hollow. I can't really recommend it to anyone except possibly the most devout of Cate Blanchett fans and even then I suspect rental is the preferred option.

-Kindly, Rory

A Rebuttal:

The horse? Oh my God, I forgot all about the horse! I too have no idea what was going on there.

Absurd, yes. It was somewhat absurd. Perhaps the movie didn't get absurd enough, now that I think about it. If it really did yearn to be a rousing action-adventure pic then it could have said to hell with historical accuracy to an even higher degree and made the dialogue even more over-the-top and encouraged more over-acting. But it didn't. It seemed to reign in at certain parts and try to tell us that, in fact, it wasn't wanting to be absurd. But it was. And if it didn't want to be and it is then....

I don't know what else to say, quite frankly. I think my colleague and I have summed it up enough for you. "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is why Netflix was invented. Be thankful you have Rory and I to spend our hard-earned money to tell you these things.

Keep it real, Nick

Bourne Ultimatum

Jason Bourne is back for his third adventure. Jason is continuing in his quest to discover who exactly he is. The events of the second film jarred loose some tantalizing flashbacks and Bourne is determined to remember. A reporter uncovers some information that is of interest to Bourne who is racing against the clock to get to the reporter as CIA operatives try to find Bourne and the reporter. The chase takes Bourne around the world to various locales as Bourne stays one step ahead of his antagonists. The story is a sound one, even if we don't really care about the story. Greengrass in the director's helm knows this movie is about the action.

This movie gets to the action and sets a pulse pounding pace. Who knew that walking could instill such tension and yet it does. Bourne moves methodically through the movie outwitting his antagonists and when forced outfighting them as well. As in the previous films, Bourne faces off against agents who are trained exactly like him and those fights are the icing on the cake of the best action movie I've seen in a long time. This movie is fantastic to be sure but it doesn't violate its own dimensions and it doesn't do anything that totally removes you from the movie (such as a man jumping onto a flying jet).

Does a movie like this need decent actors? Hard to say, but this movie has a plethora of them. From small bit roles by Paddy Considine and Julia Stiles to major roles for Joan Allen and David Strathairn, this movie boasts a pretty amazing cast. Even Albert Finney and Scott Glenn show up. I did feel the Julia Stiles scenes a bit forced almost like she was finally getting the screen time she was promised in the first two films. I'm not sure I really care about Bourne's back story and the movie gives little time to it, forcing it in at the end in what is arguably the slowest part of the movie.

If I have any real complaint with this film, its the advertising which revealed one of the cleverest parts of the movie in a preview for the film which makes it rather unremarkable when you see it on screen. This movie had me smiling with glee and fondly reminiscent of its predecessors. Here's hoping for a fourth Bourne film because I could visit this franchise again.

Rory

If you have yet to see a so-called summer movie and you really want to see one and you're perusing the movie ads in attempt to choose let me just go ahead and advise you to put down those ads and stop thinking about it.

This is it. This is the one. Go see "The Bourne Ultimatum". Wowie wow wow.

Not to rub it in, Rory, but I'm so thankful you had to write the synopsis since that frees me to just rant and rave like the lunatic I love to be upon seeing a film as fantastic as this one. I would like to take every director who yearns to make an action film in the next few years, sit them down and make them watch this movie and "The Bourne Supremacy" over and over. These movies are how it's done. This Paul Greengrass can direct.

"Who knew walking could instill such tension?" Great line, Rory, and so great because it's completely true. Holy gods, that opening sequence. How long did that go on? It's the reporter trying to meet Bourne and a plethora of bad guys on the reporter's tail and Bourne directing the reporter to and fro via his cellphone. It's downright amazing. There's one gunshot (as I recall), some fisticuffs, no explosions, but more than anything it's just tension generated through the art of filmmaking. It brought to mind that sequence in "Minority Report" where the pre-cog (is that the right term?) guides Tom Cruise to safety in the shopping mall. Except it's done with even more tension and skill in "Ultimatum".

Or, to say it another way, Greengrass out-Spielberg's Spielberg.

The movie hardly ever slows down once it gets going and when it does slow down it's only to give the bare-bones exposition that is needed to make sure our bearings are straight and then it revs right back up. We do receive what the esteemed Roger Ebert would term the Talking Killer Scene but it's the briefest Talking Killer Scene of all time. It has to be there because what's said must be said but it says absolutely no more than what is essential and then hurries along. You could almost see Greengrass in the editing bay hollering, "Shorter! Shorter!"

But above all, there's one moment in particular that needs to be mentioned. For me, it sums up not just this installment but the entire trilogy. There has just been a mano-a-mano fight in a Tangier apartment between Bourne and one of our bad guys (and this fight, by the way, is just as virtuoso as anything else in the movie - I loved the decision to cut the soundtrack during the battle). Once it's concluded, Bourne gets that look that in ANY OTHER action movie would be followed immediately by a crafty one-liner. At the screening I attended you could literally feel the audience leaning forward in their seats in anticipation of this crafty one-liner.

And Bourne gets that look and then says.............nothing. Absolutely nothing. I very nearly stood and cheered because of the lack of the crafty one-liner. I hate to harp on it - scratch that, I do like harping on it. But how refreshing it is to get a movie that DOESN'T give you exactly what you expect.

You mention the possibility of a fourth film. Do we need one? Well, probably not technically, but I certainly wouldn't mind another one. If this is the conclusion to the series then a superb conclusion it is. "The Bourne Ultimatum" is everything I could possibly want in an action movie and not a thing less.

Nick


A Rebuttal:

My inclination is to state some negative criticism of the movie which I do have but I won't for two reasons:

One: the criticism revolves around Julia Stiles and as Julia Stiles is on of my top five cinematic crushes I will ignore it (it isn't really Julia that is flawed anyway).

Two: This small criticism in no way counters how fantastic this movie was to watch.

If you are really curious just ask me and I'll rant.

Rory

Live Free or Die Hard

"(Bruce Willis) gets that look in his eye that says: It's going to be a pain in the ass for me to do this, but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't." - Roger Ebert

In the last few years, or ever since the advent of 24, it seems all anyone ever wants to talk about when it comes to saving the world is Jack Baur this and Jack Baur that. Well let us remember that years before Jack Baur came on the scene John McClane was the one responsible for saving our world. And not only would he save the world but he'd be pissed off and irritated the whole time he was doing it.

John McClane is a cynic's perfect hero. I realized this while watching Live Free or Die Hard, the fourth installment of the successful action movies series dating back to the 80's. And the above quote from the esteemed Mr. Ebert seems to hit the nail on the head. Has anyone ever seemed so annoyed to be the hero? He delivers some mumbo-jumbo to his sidekick at some point about divorce and how you get "nothing" for being a hero but, come on, even if John McClane was still married and got "something" for being the hero you know he'd still be ticked off about it. Every action sequence may as well be punctuated by McClane sighing with a shake of his head as he re-loads his gun. "You must be runnin' out of bad guys," he says at one point to the main bad guy. But he's not just toying with the main guy. There's exasperation in that comment, too. What did he say in the second Die Hard? "How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice?" Well, here it's how can the same shit happen to the same guy four times?

As the movie opens the FBI's computer system has been hacked into and so local law enforcement has to bring in the most notorious hackers around the country since......it doesn't really matter, I suppose. What matters is John McClane is assigned to bring in Matt Farrell (Justin Long) and, by golly, before they can even make their way out of Matt's apartment the bad guys have already started shooting at them.

A genius hacker, you see, bearing a classic villain name of Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) has set out to perpetuate a "firesale" on America. Much like John McClane I had no idea what a "firesale" is. Apparently it's a three-pronged attack on the nation's transportation, power system, and financial system. But who really cares about all that? This is a throwback to the action movies of my youth. Go, go, GO!!!

Rory, we've discussed the perils of exposition before and I was thankful for near non-existence of exposition here. The movie barely even takes time to slow down and have the Main Bad Guy discuss his motives. We have no time for such nonsense.

This is one of the first times I can recall wanting to cheer a character before the character actually appears. At the very start of the proceedings we see John McClane's daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) with a young man who we know John McClane can't possibly like and then the camera shifts to a Point Of View shot and you think to yourself - hey, that's John McClane's, point of view, isn't it? He's about to show up and kick that young man's ass, isn't he? Woo hoo!

And so what if John McClane's one-liners aren't as crafty as they used to be, and so what if he, apparently, doesn't smoke anymore (or is that too un-PC now)? He's still the action hero to end all action heroes. Slow-motion-bullets and slinging webs and CGI-generated pirate ships and robots that turn into automobiles are no match for a helicopter crashing via unusual tactics.........for real. Or, as McClane declares at one crucial juncture, "Enough of this kung fu shit". Amen, John. Amen.

Live Free or Die Hard is want I personally want in an action movie. I probably won't ever watch it again but it genuinely entertained me for two hours. In fact, at the end I even had a little smile.

Much is made here of John McClane being a little behind the times technologically. Well, so what if he is? He still knows how to save the world. What else is it he says in the second movie? Ah yes, "As far as I'm concerned progress peaked with frozen pizza." And as far as I'm concerned, tentpole "summer-movies" peaked with John McClane.

-Nick

A Response:

I confess I saw this movie on opening night. It has taken this long for my thoughts because I was desperate to find something anything that would allow me to not make this number four in the negative column. I wish I could say that I magically found that thing last night and am here to tell you how much I enjoyed Live Free or Die Hard. I wish I could say all that but I can't. Perhaps this forum is not one in which Nick and I always disagree on movies but one in which I hate every movie we see. Hate is too strong a word for the latest adventure of John McClane. I didn't hate it, I just didn't particularly like it either.

John McClane never saved the world. He saved an office building. Then he saved an airport and its passengers. Thirdly he saved a city (sort of) and now finally we have him doing what Jack Baur does on a regular basis. Now John McClane is saving the nation. It is this escalation and the savviness of his foes that suggests Jack Baur and the boys at 24 have a lot more influence on this film than I think you give them credit, Nick. Without Jack Baur, we might not have this latest from the Die Hard franchise. And where do we go from here? If there is another sequel he has to save the whole planet, and sweet maria if a 6th film were made would he save the solar system? Are we really looking at the possibility of Alien terrorists sometime in the near future? An Independence Day meets Die Hard scenario?

But this isn't about 24. This is about John McClane and Die Hard. Remember what happened in the first film? I don't remember the exact 100% details but I remember that it was about a guy who wanted money and his scheme wasn't that complex. The sequel was about a prison break. The third was about money again but the means to that end had gotten way more complex. This film's villain is after money too but his means are beyond complex. I just stopped caring. Maybe techno savy geeks watching this film enjoy that element but I'm a guy who can barely program all his electronics and has a computer way more powerful than he will ever need, ever.

And what about the villain? Timothy Olyphant? Alan Rickman he is not. Jeremy Irons he is definately not. Hell I wouldn't even rank Olyphant ahead of William Sadler when it comes to mastermind villainy. Oh yeah I said it. So we have the weakest villain from the series to date with the most convoluted plot. We have a new side kick (he always has a side kick did you ever notice that?) in Justin Long. Justin is not suited to this role, he speaks nonsense techno babble and acts pretty poorly (even for an action flick).

But a film like this isn't about the plot (although I would argue it is about the villain), it's about the action. Is the action worth the price of admission? Yes and no. A lot of the early action sequences are high octane and intense and just pure fun. They may stretch the imagination but not so as to take you from the picture. There is also some fancy shots of those French martial arts which were featured in District B13 (a fine (and French even )martial arts action film for those interested). I've been seeing a lot of this recently. The camera for once actually stays still on the action which is a pleasant change from the frequent "let's move the camera so fast no one can know what is going on" motif. Near the end though, the action gets cartoonish. It was so ridiculous that I was literally taken out of the film. A plane under an overpass? I suspect the physics are a bit wonky there.

I agree, Nick, Bruce Willis gives a great wearied performance to John McClane but even he is strained to get through the character development scenes with Justin Long (since when does McClane explain why he does what he does?). In any event I found the recent 16 Blocks a much better angle for what this film could have been. It wasn't big it was simple. This is what this series needs, a back to basics model.

So when we add up everything we get a foolish plot with an unconvincing villain, and a lackluster co-star with okay but not mind wowing action sequences. Bruce Willis' wearied McClane almost carries the film but falls just short. If we used some sort of scale or system to review our movies this one would fall just short of positive but negative nonetheless.

A Rebuttal:

Touche, Rory. John McClane technically did not save the world in the first three or, I suppose, in this one. But, come on, it felt like he saved the world. Or that he could have saved the world, if he really wanted or needed to. And besides, if he doesn't overcome the odds in these movies than the terrorists would win. And if the terrorists win, well, our President can certainly tell you that if the terrorists win, freedom loses. And if freedom loses, the world loses. Am I right, people?

I agree that Olyphant is an amazingly bland villain. As an actor he's bland by nature. And while I felt that served him extremely well on Deadwood, it fails him here. We don't want bland villains. We want, well, Alan Rickman from the first one. A charming but ultimately sadistic rogue. And McClane's sidekick sure as crap ain't no Al Powell. And while his daughter is feisty she just can't match McClane's ex-wife. And........but why am I whining?


I liked the movie and that's really all there is to it. Yes, the big action scene at the end with the plane and the semi and the freeway is utterly absurd but you've gotta' respect the placement of it. Any other action movie made today would have put that sequence at the start. But Live Free or Die Hard actually knows something about pacing.

Perhaps it just that our recent spate of American action films can't hold a candle to what was being churned out in the 80's and early 90's (aside from the Bourne films, that is) and so when something comes along that's defiantly old school, and knowingly one-ups itself as it goes, that I'm much more willing to forgive its clear flaws.

That, and if a movie provides me at least one indelible character, I can roll with it. One character that makes me feel like I'm right there with him (or her) in the muck and the mire. One character that makes me feel what he (or she) is feeling, every step of the way. Bruce Willis does that yet again as John McClane. I thought he did carry the movie.

I thought he strapped it to his back and, even if the wheels were starting to come off and the gas was getting low, lugged it right over the finish line.

(But how about if the series ends? Right here, right now? Does that work for everyone?)

-Nick

1408

1408 is about Mike Enslin (John Cusack). Mike is a writer who goes around to hotels that claim to be haunted and tests them. He was once a promising writer before a personal tragedy caused him to abandon his life and begin the one on which he is engaged. One day he receives a simple postcard from "The Dolphin Hotel" with a simple imperative scrawled on the back - "don't enter 1408." Mike laughs at the 'tactic' that is clearly being used on him and even the quaintness that the numbers add up to 13. He researches the room and finds plenty of ghastly murders and decides this is a perfect new chapter to his book. Eventually Mike gets into the room and the horror begins.

If you weren't aware this is a horror film. There is not much more than that. Set up and then scare, its been working for years, so why change a good formula. I desperately wanted to like this film. I really did. I didn't want another negative mark. And for about an hour or so I did like the movie. It has a few jolt you from your seat moments and some genuinely creepy moments and some neat effects. I wished they would cut back on some of the flashier stuff and play up the suspense and tension but not so much I was taken out of the film. That was saved for a moment late in the film. Its a fake out (one you can see coming early on), I saw the seeds laid and I hoped, I prayed they wouldn't do it, that they had just put that scene in to make you think they were going to do it (can anyone follow that?).

Needless to say my prayers were not answered. After that things get bigger and more showy but not scary. If the fake out was cheap, the end is bargain bin cheap. Performances? Well, Cusack as always is entertaining to watch. Sam Jackson has a few ultimately pointless but well acted scenes trying to convince Cusack not to rent the room. And well, that's it really. I don't have much to say about this film. It started well enough and crapped out by the end but maybe I just wanted a better movie. I'd probably watch it again if I found it on free cable (the first half at least).

Rory

A Response:

I should start by saying I've never been what one may term a Horror Movie Fan. They just don't do it for me. I mean, a few of them do. But most of the time I find myself disappointed. There are even horror movies I'll admit are skillfully made but - personally, and personally only - they leave me hollow. Yet, I don't think a lot of them are skillfully made. Any director can couple a door opening with a loud piano chord and make you jump, right?

So is 1408 a typical horror movie or is it something else? Well, I think it has an inkling to be something more. I think it wants to work on more of a psychological level. Or maybe it just wants us to think it works on more of psychological level. You're totally right, Rory, in that as it progresses it just gets more showy. Not scary. Good way to put it.

But I was at least somewhat involved in it most of the time. I wasn't checking my watch (so to speak since I don't own a watch) or tapping my foot incessantly. And that is due in no small part - or completely, if I think about it - to John Cusack's performance. This guy is just such a good actor. I mean, we've gotta' be willing to roll with this guy (even though through some trite character development we learn he's a bit "selfish") as he's pretty much the whole movie. And you do roll with him because Cusack has that ability to pull you in no matter what he's doing. And he's pitch-perfect even if the movie itself is not. (His performance actually brought to mind for me Naomi Watts' turn in "The Ring". I didn't really like that movie as a whole, either, but I thought the moments in which it did work were solely because Watts grounded it.) He goes through the stages of emotion just as I imagine someone would if in a situation such as this. Complete Denial to It Must All Be My Imagination to What The Hell Is Going On?! to an almost Ah, Fuck It.

Samuel L. Jackson is good, too, in what little he has to do. I enjoyed watching Jackson and Cusack go head to head. If I'd made this movie I would have had it be 85 minutes of Jackson's hotel manager trying to convince Cusack's writer not to go into the room and then right at the very end Cusack would have decided not to go in. Most of America would hate that. Too bad.

But yeah, the movie itself just doesn't work, just doesn't hold up. I think the reason I've never been a big fan of the horror movie genre is that so many of the horror movies I've encountered (at least recent ones) seem to rely so heavily on false endings. And I hate false endings. And we get a plethora of them here.

The fake out scene you mention is one that even I caught and I never catch them. I tend to not try and guess ahead when watching a movie, I just like to be absorbed in it. But I totally saw that fake out coming. It stood out like such a sore thumb. There was utterly no reason for it to be there except to come back later for a little trickery. And, in the end, the whole thing is just a big empty bag of trickery and one too many conclusions.

(Did we actually agree?)

Regards,

Nick

Rebuttal?

Yes, Nick I think we are in agreement (mostly): the highlights: Cusack and Jackson are fun to watch as ever. The low points: the horrible fake out and lack of genuine tension. In a cheesy send off of something from this very movie:

"Don't go see 1408"

Ocean's Thirteen

In the third installment of this somewhat beloved series, the entire "Oceans" gang is back. At least, I thought going in the entire gang was back. Perhaps you were in a different boat than me, Rory, but I'll cop to the fact I had no idea that Julia Roberts was not in this movie. I'm completely unaware how I didn't know this considering I saw several previews for it but at about the hour mark I remember thinking to myself, "Wait, I haven't seen Julia Roberts. Have I?" I hadn't. And I didn't. So, in any event, almost the entire "Oceans" gang is back and this time they're going all Charles Bronson (i.e. It's a revenge movie).

Elliot Gould's Ruben, you see, has decided to go into business with casino tycoon Willy Bank (Al Pacino) only to have Bank bilk him out of his fortune. And when this happens the rest of the "Oceans" gang - spearheaded once again by Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt) - decide it's payback time. They hatch an elaborate scheme (is there any other kind?) to bilk Bank out of a great deal of his own fortune on the Grand Opening night of his new casino while at the same time stealing an unstealable collection of Bank's diamonds.

Now, before we go any further, I'd like to explain that while most of America seemed to dislike - or, at least, not like it anywhere near as much as the first one - Oceans Twelve, I loved it. In fact, I'll state for the record that I thought it was better than the first one. Was it indulgent? Without question. Was it, as many people have claimed, nothing more than a bunch of well-paid actors having a good time in front of a camera? Absolutely. And I say, what the hell's wrong with that? They were having a good time and so I had a good time watching them. I thought Julia Roberts' character pretending to be Julia Roberts was the comic zenith.

And that's why the first 15-20 minutes of Oceans Thirteen felt excruciatingly flat. All they did was set up and explain the heist that was to come and the actors didn't look in any way like they were having a good time and therefore the movie didn't feel like it was having a good time and therefore the audience isn't having a good time.


Once we actually get to the heist, though, things pick up, if not as much as I would hope. The how of the heist really didn't concern me as much as what went on the way to and during the heist. Like, for instance, the interesting detour that occurs with Casey Affleck's character when he is dispatched to a Mexican factory. Or Matt Damon literally donning a fake nose and yukking it up. Or Clooney and Pitt engaging in their witty rapport. (And, by the way, is there anyone better at reaction shots than George Clooney? He's the King of the Reaction Shot.)

Oceans Thirteen is certainly diverting, meaning it's worth the price of admission on a humid summer night. But there just isn't anything as uproarious in this one as the second one. And the heist doesn't feel as elaborate or as cool as the first one. They wanted to include all the good things from the first two except nothing here feels as well done as either of them.

Or maybe I was just disappointed that Julia Roberts' absence meant they couldn't up the ante by, say, working it out so Tess was posing as Julia Roberts who was, in turn, posing as Julia Roberts' stunt double.

Rory, I eagerly await your response.

Nick

A Response:

If Nick's greatest fear for this forum was that we would agree on our first film out of the gate, my biggest fear was that I would end up hating every movie that was discussed, thus making me look like a person who doesn't like anything. (I assure you, reader, that I do in fact on occasion like movies.) Luckily for Nick and sadly for me, we are once again in disagreement and I mark two negatives in the movie column. The Ocean gang is indeed back for revenge as Nick says. The revenge is over the top, but this film is going for over the top. I was aware that Julia Roberts would not be in this film and I was aware that Catherine Zeta-Jones was not in this film (yeah, I remember she made her debut as Rusty's love interest in the second film). There absences are explained away in a cheap way.

(I would like to note that I'm not fond of the "going Charles Bronson" metaphor because, if in fact the Ocean Gang had gone Charles Bronson, this film would have been way different with a much higher body count. (Go check out Soderberg's The Limey for a great, stylistic revenge film.) Actually as I think about it, this would have been weirdly intriguing, if the film had "gone Charles Bronson.")

Since, Nick, you've opened the door to Ocean's Twelve, I'll add my two cents worth as well. I agree it was indulgent. The actors were having one fantastic time (it seemed). The problem is it felt like one big in joke, which I wasn't in on. You know the kind, the kind that makes you feel bad because you don't get the joke. To me that is what Ocean's Twelve felt like.

But this isn't about its predecessors, its about the current film. Twenty minutes of film for lackluster start, Nick? I'm sorry, no. Let me say that the opening of this film made me do something I rarely do. I checked the time. After an interminably long time, I actually pulled out my time piece and looked at it. The previews for this movie started at 7:00 pm. Even if I'm generous and say they lasted twenty minutes (which they didn't), then the set up for this film finally concluded at 7:50 pm. That means there was a full half hour of set up, all done as exposition. Sure they tried to hide it behind dialogue between Pitt, Clooney and Eddie Izzard but nonetheless it was exposition. But that wasn't even the end of it, there must have been an additional ten to fifteen minutes of exposition later. The movie, which clocks in at just over two hours, had almost forty five minutes of explaining? Are they kidding me?

So after a very long explanation we know the who, what, where, when, why and even how the gang will pull off its caper. Will they pull it off? I don't think I need to answer that. What made the first caper from the first film so great was that we didn't actually know the how. We knew some of it, but not the whole thing, which was revealed in the end. We knew they would pull it off, but we were slightly in the dark as to the how. Now it might be cheap to repeat oneself, but knowing everything isn't entertaining.

Casey Affleck's side plot at the factory in Mexico was by far the most humorous part of the film. I actually laughed out loud when he gave his speech about Zapata. The effect of that speech was priceless. Once they were all back in Vegas, it was boring business as usual. Damon yuks it up with his prosthetic nose but he has a really awful scene with Ellen Barkin. It was actually painful to watch. I felt bad for Ellen Barkin.

And what about the "thirteen" of the title? I actually lost count of how many people were involved in this job. It was more than thirteen though. And sweet merciful crap was that Super Dave Osborne as Damon's father? Oh, you better believe it. Add all that up and I was done. I didn't leave but I checked out. It was just too much bad and ridiculous with too much explanation and too many dull scenes.

Here's hoping the next film I see is good (but I'm not optimistic).

Rory

A Rebuttal:

Your mentioning of the actual allotted time for exposition and set-up makes me wonder if I too mentally checked out, at least at the start. You state there was an explaining away of Julia Roberts' absence, and a couple reviews I read after seeing the movie also spoke of this explaining away, but I don't remember it happening. I must have been asleep, I guess.

What's the deal with the summer sequels this year and exposition? Are the filmmakers just lazy? Are they in too much of a rush to make their release dates? Are they hiring screenwriters straight out of UCLA who don't know any better? At this point I envision the first hour of Live Free or Die Hard as nothing but Bruce Willis sitting around with supporting characters, flipping through Kodak pictures of all his adventures since Die Hard 3, explaining them in detail.

Casey Affleck's "Zapata" speech was indeed hilarious. Probably the single best moment of the movie outside of the gag at the very end, which I won't give away. And I just really, really enjoy the chemistry between George Clooney and Brad Pitt. There were times, yes, where they seemed to be on auto pilot but auto pilot with this duo still makes for a very smooth ride. Steven Soderbergh is a junkie for experimentation and I think he should experiment with a movie just starring Clooney and Pitt in a room riffing. No, wait! How about this?! A Tape-like movie (have you seen that one?) set entirely in one room but done as a comedy with Julia Roberts as the Uma Thurman character. That would be fantastic! Okay, maybe no one else would like it, but I think I would.

But as for Oceans Thirteen, I still liked it. At least, I did once the set-up was done. But I do wonder if I liked it as much as I thought I did just because I didn't want to gouge out my own eyeballs, a la Pirates of the Caribbean 3. And if so, that kind of disturbs me. Is that the new criteria for judging these summertime tentpole movies? Did it make me want to gouge out my own eyeballs or did it not want to make me gouge out my own eyeballs? It didn't so it's a success.

In any event, how long until The Bourne Ultimatum?

Sincerely, Nick

Knocked Up

Knocked Up is a romantic comedy by Judd Apatow and stars Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogan. The director, the writer and not a few members of the cast are veterans of The 40 Year Old Virgin. Knocked Up is attempting to cash in on the former movie’s success. The film stars Seth Rogan as Ben Stone. Ben is an unemployed slacker who spends his time hanging out with his equally unemployed slacker friends attempting to start an internet business together. Katherine Heigl plays Allison Scott. Allison is a hard working woman recently promoted to anchor for the E! Network. She lives with her sister and her sister’s husband and kids. Allison goes out to celebrate her promotion and meets Ben. After a night of drunken passion Allison ends up pregnant. The film follows Ben and Allison as they figure out each other, their relationship and the coming baby.

Allison decides against the opinions of her confidants to become involved with Ben. As one might expect from a relationship built on the foundation of “be with the father of my baby” a comical mismatch is bound to ensue. There are two side plots worth mentioning. The first is that Allison’s sister has marital problems with her husband. She provides a negative example of marrying the person who gave you the kid. The other major side plot is Seth and company’s attempts to start an internet company which will tell you in what movie and when an actress got naked. Allison’s E! job provides plenty of cameos of actors and friends of the director (I assume) also make small cameos.

Aside from the pregnancy this movie is following a pretty standard romantic comedy plot line. Two people who don’t seem to quite belong together get together, it works for a while, then they stumble before they work it out and all ends happily ever after. As I said this film is trying to cash in on the success of The 40 Year Old Virgin. It doesn’t succeed. Steve Carell’s Andy was a loser but a sweet loser and so the resolution inside a basic comedy was actually quite charming. Seth Rogan’s Ben is not charming; he’s a semi-funny loser that the film desperately tries to convince the audience is sweet.

Ben isn’t sweet. Ben is an asshole. For most of the movie everything that Ben does or says is typically raunchy, inappropriate or just plain unfunny. He then has the unbelievable gall to act surprised when his attempts to woo Allison fail. Ben’s friends are assholes. A group of equally lamentable losers with even less tact and not even the reasonable amount of charm that Seth Rogan brings to his Ben. Even Ben’s father is an asshole. In a cameo, Harold Ramis plays Ben’s father who gives him advice. He gives bad advice and then plays cute when he’s called on it. Their jokes aren’t funny and I had no sympathy for anything they did. Allison’s sister is an asshole (albeit with slightly more reason than most in this film). Allison’s brother in law? Sweet Maria, Paul Rudd may be the biggest asshole in the entire film.

I didn’t buy Ben and Allison’s relationship. It isn’t the beautiful woman falls for funny guy bit (a movie standard), it’s the beautiful woman falls for a guy who isn’t funny, just (say it with me now) an asshole. The movie tries desperately to make you think Ben isn’t really all that bad (I think it fails, miserably). Ben’s miraculous third act turn around (this may be a spoiler but there is always a third act turn around in a romantic comedy) doesn’t make much sense. There is a moment when Allison is watching a movie reminiscing about the good (?) times she had with Ben. The movie? Wild Things. I literally thought what the f*** (Yes I thought asterisks)?

The side plots were tired and played for cheap laughs. If Allison’s sister has the marriage to be avoided, why isn’t it played up more? If in fact it is a model of a dysfunctional but still working marriage, why isn’t it played up more? Truth be told, I couldn’t figure out exactly what it was supposed to be doing. As for the internet company, if you were like me when you heard the idea, you said to yourself aloud (like Mr. Skin?). If you get what I just said you probably watch too much porn. Needless to say Ben’s attempts at financial benefit without real work are in trouble.

There are a few mildly amusing cameos by actors playing themselves. The funniest is probably by Ryan Seacrest (Guess what? He’s playing an asshole!). A later cameo by Steve Carell actually resulted in a character calling him an asshole. I almost thought this could be metatheatric but that would be giving the film maker far too much credit. In the end, the attempt to be saccharine sweet falls flat. I don’t like Ben. I don’t care if Ben ever gets it together. Allison is probably better off without Ben. I wish I had counted the times I laughed in this film because I’m guessing it would be low (some smirks but not a lot of laughs).

Thanks for Reading, Rory

A Response:

As I left "Knocked Up" I was overwhelmed by the fear that Rory and I would agree in complete unison regarding this film since, after all, the point of this new blog is for us to disagree. Since this is our first post it just seemed like we were destined to see eye to eye. Lo and behold, my fears were alleviated in no time.

Is "Knocked Up" a masterpiece of comedy? Goodness, no. There's a bit too much pop culture, for one thing. But I enjoyed it thoroughly and several parts made me laugh way, way out loud. As Rory stated, the characters played by Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl are our leads but for my money the counterpoint couple of Pete and Debbie played by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann are the movie's highlight. In fact, I'll take it a step further. I say this without fear of reprisal.

Leslie Mann deserves an Oscar nomination.

Yes, I thought she was just that good. (Mann, by the way, was the "french toast" girl from "The 40 Year Old Virgin", if that means anything to you.) She's brash and angry and opinionated. She's like a comic version of Mark Wahlberg in The Departed. She's awesome and all alone worth the price of a ticket. The moment when she and Paul Rudd are sitting at the table and she's hurling insults at him and she's staring right at him and he's looking anywhere but at her and she stays locked right on him - that might have been the funniest part of the movie.

No, no, no, the funniest part of the movie is when she confronts the doorman at the night club when he won't let her and her sister in. It's hilarious, and strangely touching, and kind of the moment that I thought summed up the film as a whole.

It's interesting, Rory, that you mention how everyone in the movie is an asshole. I don't dispute your assessment. I find it accurate and also perhaps the point. I think we've all got a little asshole in us. (Well, maybe not all of us but who wants to hang out with anyone who doesn't?) Whenever I think about the possibility of marriage and kids I start freaking out. I kinda' freak out like Paul Rudd. Remember when he indicates his need for "time by myself"? I think that's my #1 worry when I ponder marriage and kids. As those who know me can attest, I need alone time. It's not just that I crave it. I need it. I don't just freak out if I don't get it. I can go into a state of semi-nervous breakdown if I don't get it. So what happens if I get married? And/or have a kid? That alone time vanishes, right? That's a scary thing for me. (My friend Dan once commented that when I get married I would need to get a second apartment solely for the purpose of going there to watch Nebraska Football games.)

Pete and Debbie are often in a state of freak-out. They're are also assholes, yes, but then I can be a little bit of an asshole. Maybe not to this level. But if I got married and lost my alone time?

No one came across to me as a hostile asshole. They're all still lovable assholes. They're assholes that are trying their best, damn it. Even if sometimes (okay, quite often) their best is pretty darn crappy.

Warmest regards, Nick

A Rebuttal:

I agree Nick, every one in life is a little bit of an asshole. Hell, one of my father’s favorite things to say to me in my teen years was “everyone likes a little ass, but no one likes a smart ass.” Okay, so I get the idea that everyone is a little bit of an asshole. But these characters aren’t a little anything. They are whopping huge SOBs. Ad nauseam Ben says and does things to Allison that are unbelievably crappy.

It isn’t the why of Paul Rudd’s freak out that bothered me. I can empathize with your fear of marriage. It’s the how of it. I’m sure my view of marriage is naïve (and someone is bound to tell me so) but I would hope in such a situation I would be man enough to tell my wife I need my space. I might not get it, she might flip out. I really don’t know. And neither did Paul Rudd’s character. He just ran away. Leslie Mann’s character points out she is just as overwhelmed.

I willingly concede that Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd’s performances were pretty good for what they were. The problem for me was determining exactly what they were. It’s clear at times that their marriage is meant as a symbol for Allison. That symbol changed depending on what part of the movie we were at. Some of the early scenes between Mann and Rudd were funny but when it turned darker, those early scenes lost their luster. Suddenly what was a comically dysfunctional couple had become a real marriage in jeopardy. And in that case the humor should go darker. Dark times call for dark humor.

I stick with my assessment of these people. They are hostile. Deep down Ben is saying things because he knows they will hurt Allison or he is doing things that he has to know will hurt Allison. Rudd’s Pete is doing things that he has to know hurt his wife. Ben’s friends are utterly forgettable but they seem like bad people. Leslie Mann is about the only one in this film with any legitimate reason to be pissed off. But being who I am, I know I’ll head right to the theater the next time Apatow and crew release another film, but I’ll be hoping for another 40 Year Old Virgin.

Cheers, Rory