An Education (Scherfig)

I think An Education suffers from Good Will Hunting Syndrome, i.e. I'm supposed to sympathize with a main character whose problems I would love to have. You're smart, pretty, confident, and outgoing? Ooh, I feel so terrible for you, I really do. And unlike Good Will Hunting, this girl comes from a loving, supportive family. Come on Nick Hornby, give me a real protagonist next time, would you?

I feel like at the end of this movie I'm supposed to say to myself (spoiler warning), "Ah, yes, I remember when I was young and smart and good-looking and I had an underage fling with a really hot, charming guy, and I was so sweet and naive and he totally took advantage of me, but I learned a lot about life and I still got to go to my dream college so it all worked out in the end." Sorry. Don't remember that.

Otherwise the film's not bad. I certainly got a good feel for how crummy and boring early 1960s England must have been. Viewing all that repression and stagnation and an entire nation's pathetic effort to cling to an outdated social structure, I kept wanting to shout out, "Come on, Beatles, just show up already!" Just imagine it: England before The Beatles. What was the point? At least America had Hollywood. The girl in this movie dreams of living in France and watching pretentious French movies and reading philosophy and probably wearing a beret. France? Just wait a couple of years, honey. England will be way more swinging than France.

Film critic rating: ***
Little Earl rating: **

Up In The Air (Reitman)

Sometimes I think, if you're not trying to make Apocalypse Now, then what the hell are you doing? Sure, I understand, you can't make Apocalypse Now on the first try; you've got to work your way up to it. But I get the impression that Jason Reitman wouldn't even want to make Apocalypse Now if he actually had the budget. He's just not that ambitious.

So aiming low, he hits his target. I could think of worse outcomes. He probably thinks he's being really profound trying to make a movie about "The Economic Crisis." Honestly, for those of us with some perspective, the "Economic Crisis" is small potatoes compared to other events in human history. Sure, for our generation it's a bit bracing, but if you want to see an "economic crisis," watch The Grapes Of Wrath.

I still have a hard time buying George Clooney as anything other than "glamorous movie star." I can't even remember his character's name; in my recollections he just registers as "George Clooney." His character also feels like a screenplay construction. Are there really people like this? Or, more to the point, does Jason Reitman actually know any people like this?

Maybe I'm being a jerk. This movie was mostly a pleasure to watch. Compared to She's Out Of My League or Hot Tub Time Machine, it probably is Apocalypse Now. A friend of mine was saying, "I think there's room in the world for these little mainstream dramas. In a perfect world a movie like Up In The Air would just be average, instead of really good only because most other movies really suck." All right, well, how about this: if you're not trying to make Apocalypse Now, at least try to make ... The Graduate? Maybe it's not fair to criticize a movie just because you feel like if you met the director you wouldn't have anything in common. Call it what you want.

A final note: there's a character in this movie who says her dream job is in San Francisco. Yeah, well, wait until you ride MUNI for five minutes and have to sit next to 18 smelly quasi-homeless guys on the way to work every morning and try to find an apartment that isn't completely falling apart and isn't bleeding your wallet dry, and tell me if your dream job is in San Francisco then, bitch.

She'd probably just live in the East Bay and work in the city.

Film critic rating: ***1/2
Little Earl rating: **1/2

Where The Wild Things Are (Jonze)

Things I liked about this movie:

1) It wasn't written by committee
2) It didn't sugarcoat the situations it presented
3) The monsters looked like real monsters and not like lazy CGI creations (even though apparently some CGI was used), i.e. I just plain enjoyed looking at the monsters
4) It didn't have an obvious target audience
5) It didn't throw in a bunch of cringe-inducing pop culture references destined to become dated in three years

Things I didn't like about this movie:

1) The story seems forced. The original book is only about nine sentences long. It seems like Dave Eggers wanted to write an "edgy" children's movie, but he didn't really generate enough of a plot for a full-length film. It's as though Eggers and Jonze thought of the challenge first, and then the story second. As a result the movie feels a little unnecessary.
2) Jonze does a little too much of that "shakey-cam" thing. What happened to keeping your camera still, people?
3) I didn't think the "indie-folk" soundtrack fit the visual look of the film and I don't think it will age well. But I'm not much of an indie-folk guy anyway.

In summary: I liked the idea of this movie more than the actual movie itself. Which seems to be happening a lot lately.

Film critic rating: **1/2
Little Earl rating: **1/2

Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino)

Well, I don't quite remember World War II happening like this. But who's keeping track? My 10th grade history teacher was barely able to cover World War I, let alone World War II. On the last day of class he showed us three pictures. "This is Hitler. This is Stalin. This is Roosevelt. Got it?"

Anyway, just when you thought nothing new could have possibly been done with the World War II/Holocaust film, I believe Tarantino has actually gone and done it. This is truly a World War II/Holocaust movie I have not seen before. Give the man credit where credit is due.

I suspect Inglourious Basterds is also a film studies major's dream, in that a film studies major will have a field day with its treatment of the subject matter. I no longer associate myself with "film studies," so in one sense I could really give two shits. But this movie is begging to be attacked, defended, psychoanalyzed, deconstructed, and so on. The Holocaust is a subject most academics treat with the utmost gravity. Tarantino, suffice to say, has taken a different approach. I imagine there will be many useless and ineffective essays written by film professors and grad students along the lines of Dana Stevens' review in Slate, declaring this film misguided, irresponsible, and insulting. Let me tell you something, film professors: Tarantino is laughing at you.

This movie and Downfall would make a great double feature. The painstakingly accurate depiction of Hilter's last days vs. the completely ridiculous depiction. But I learned a lot from both. Personally, I think Tarantino's gleefully unfaithful approach to the World War II/Holocaust film actually made me think about that period of history in at least as many ways as Downfall did. Contrary to what some might say (including the enfant terrible himself) I think he actually takes the subject matter quite seriously; he just isn't stuffy or reserved about it. Basterds is like an emotional thought experiment. Just how would it feel to do this to the Nazis? Honestly I don't think it would have felt that great. Basterds was like the ending of The Wild Bunch minus the last scene with Thornton and Sykes. I don't think if the Nazis had really died in this way, we would feel any better about the whole thing. But see - at least now we have our answer!

Nevertheless, as strong as this film is, I feel there is a certain element missing that is present in most of Tarantino's other work: I didn't actually find any of these characters likeable. Aldo Raine and the basterds were on the "good" side, but I can't really say I was rooting for them. The Jewish girl was more like a symbol, not a character. There wasn't really a positive moment of human connection to be found anywhere. Tarantino does excel, however at showing just how much these characters really hate each other. When one character kills another in this movie, they do so from a place of pure, unfiltered, spontaneous rage. There is a scene where a young man is about to be spared from death, until, just for shits and giggles, he superfluously calls someone a "traitor" and he is shot (he would have been better off keeping his opinions to himself). That seems to sum up the whole driving force behind Nazism: "We lost World War I, we're angry, we want to take it out on other people, and we don't even care if we live in the end."

So even though this might not be Tarantino's most violent or disturbing movie, I found it to be his most nihilistic. "Come on, what about Reservoir Dogs?" you say. Was it just me, or was the misguided friendship between Tim Roth and Harvey Keitel in Reservoir Dogs amazingly poignant? In Pulp Fiction certain characters learned to grow and change. I even liked Bill in Kill Bill more than any character in Basterds. Yes, Tarantino has made a creative, interesting movie, but so has Lars von Trier. "Well, why should a World War II/Holocaust movie be life-affirming and joyous?" you ask. Honestly, very few of my favorite movies are World War II/Holocaust movies. Casablanca is a World War II movie but it's not about the Holocaust. Schindler's List is impressive simply because I'm sitting there the whole time wondering just how long Spielberg can hold that cold, distant tone without blinking. But have I watched it more than twice?

Final observation: What other director working today, besides Tarantino, possesses such name-brand drawing power, he can make almost no concessions to the audience and still pack the seats? Well, Grindhouse aside. Not a franchise, mind you, but a director. Peter Jackson? Martin Scorsese? Tarantino can pretty much do anything he wants at this point and the audience is willing to follow him there. Subtitles? You'll take it and you'll like it. Long passages of dialogue? Go ahead, get up and leave, I dare you. The poor girl next to me with a Bloomingdale's shopping bag lasted about 20 minutes. So, not everybody I guess.

Film critic rating: ***1/2
Little Earl rating: ***

The Hurt Locker (Bigelow)

Sadly, this is not a film about a moody high school football star and his tempestuous relationship with a metal compartment.

Honestly, what kind of a title is that? Not a very promising one, it seemed to me, but after several reviewers called the film "the first great movie about the Iraq War," I figured I might as well give it a shot. But what's the competition? Redacted? In The Valley Of Elah? Stop Loss? None of which are movies I have seen, of course, and in that regard I am not alone. Something about "Iraq War movie" just screams "yes" to certain Hollywood directors and "no" to me. My concern is: what is this movie going to tell me that I don't already know? Look: I didn't really think the Iraq War was a good idea. But nobody asked me what I thought, and I can't really do anything about it, so I really don't want to dwell on it in particular. It's not that I can't handle "difficult" material, or that I'd rather see G.I. Joe instead. I just don't think I'm going to get much out of it.

Here is what I will say about The Hurt Locker: it was very credible, realistic, and understated. I think the reason critics are calling it "the first great Iraq War movie" is because it is not preachy or heavy-handed. There is no obvious message. The main character, in fact, loves being in Iraq. So why have I completely forgotten about it until the composition of this review? I blame, once again, that shitty, "hand-held" cinematography. I don't like that look. It. Looks. Like. Crap. You can make a "realistic" movie that doesn't look like a low-budget documentary. I'm starting to think that the cinematography can make or break a movie for me. Are there any classic movies that are classic despite their sub-standard cinematography? I can't think of any.

Mostly The Hurt Locker made me realize how much I liked Sam Mendes' Jarhead. For some reason critics really ripped on Jarhead when it came out in 2005, but I thought it was hilarious and surreal and full of loads of off-handed insight into the American military mentality (even though it was actually about the first Persian Gulf War). Oh, and it also had great cinematography. The Hurt Locker mostly made me think, "OK, I'm glad there's not a draft and I don't have to do what this guy does." I figured that out in about five minutes, unfortunately.

Liberal guilt, I'm looking at you. Hopefully Kathryn Bigelow was not sitting around thinking, "I'm living a rich a comfortable life in California while other people are dodging suicide bombers in Baghdad. What can I do to make a difference?" That motivation does not a good movie make. I like movies that stem more from a filmmakers' own personal identification with their material. Not from, you know, their guilt.

Film critic rating: ***
Little Earl rating: *1/2

Brüno

The ladyfriend and I went to see Bruno this past Saturday. Has anyone else seen it yet? I knew it was going to be pretty outrageous, a "Hard R" as Ebert called it. Well I was pleasantly surprised to find out what a hard R meant. There are penises within the first five minutes of the film. I thought that was NC-17 stuff. Anyways, I was already familiar with the character of Bruno from Da Ali G show days. Back then Bruno was there to satirize the vacuousness of the fashion industry - like the one interview where he asks some employee at a high-end Rodeo Drive clothing store what celebrities shop there. When the employee can't name anyone terribly interesting Bruno stops filming and asks the guy to mention some bigger names, like Britney or J-Lo. They begin filming again and the employee changes his story, stating that Britney, etc. are all regular patrons. Funny stuff.

Unfortunately the film "Brüno" wants to deal more with (homo) sexuality. While I'm not against exposing people's bigotry and ignorance towards the subject, I was hoping for more of the old Bruno. Besides a slight bit at the beginning where Bruno hilariously manages to make it onto a fashion runway in Milan, there's really not much about fashion at all. Instead it's all sex-sex-sex. There's funny bits at the beginning where there's some obviously faux sexual acts going on, but later there's a few scenes with some very real sex going on, with just the tiniest bit of black censor bars editing out the naughty bits. While none of this made me feel uncomfortable, I was just more pretty astounded that they could get away with this with just an R. It was like watching the end of the Brown Bunny all over again.

There are a few fairly memorable bits, like when Bruno is naming a bunch of celebrities and Germanizing their names (my favorite - Will Smith becomes "Wilhelm Schmidt"), or when Bruno brings out his adopted black baby on a talk show dominated by an all black audience. Then the movie ends with a closing song wherein somehow Sascha Baron Cohen, I mean Bruno, has managed to wrangle up the biggest talents from the British and Emerald isles to sing a song with him, somehow even getting one of LE's favorite artists to sing a line about "anal bleaching". How they got that poor man to do that I have no idea. All in all, not as good as Borat, but it still has its moments.