The Wrestler (Aronofsky)

This is probably the best Mickey Rourke/washed-up wrestler/Marisa Tomei as a stripper movie ever. Which is to say that this film has been made a million times before. But as Roger Ebert once put it, "It's not what a movie is about, but how it is about it." And so The Wrestler is about its wrestler in a very authentic and convincing way. I have spent some time in the crappy industrial Northeast of this nation, and let me tell you, The Wrestler oozes that authentic crappy industrial Northeast vibe. Even locales as simple as the schoolroom, or the back office of the supermarket, smack of real places and not movie sets. It's the most honest movie about fake wrestling ever.

You can thank Mickey Rourke. A lot of critics have said that although Rourke's performance is very affecting, it doesn't really "count," because all he's doing is basically playing himself. But I don't necessarily think that great acting means "an actor trying to pretend that he is someone he is not" (a la Sean Penn in Milk). I want to get a sense of the actor's spirit in a performance. I'm talking about Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. All Humphrey Bogart had to do was "play Bogart." But so what? I'm talking about Diane Keaton in Annie Hall, I'm talking about Michael Douglas in Wonder Boys. Great acting is often as simple as just not doing anything obnoxious. Great acting is brushing vanity aside and having the guts to reveal your own feelings through your character. Besides, he punctures his skin with a staple gun! He sticks his fingers in a meat slicer! Let's see Sean Penn do that, you know?

I do wish that filmmakers these days did not feel they needed to use that crappy, "low-budget" hand-held look to suggest grittiness. I believe that a movie can be "gritty" and yet still employ stately, meticulous cinematography (for example: Taxi Driver, Bonnie and Clyde, The Godfather, etc.). But, then again, that takes time, money, and effort.

When my roommate came back from seeing The Wrestler, he said to me, "You know what message I got from that movie? 'Diversify.' " Randy "The Ram" Robinson is really only good at one thing and one thing only, and that's being Randy "The Ram" Robinson. You'd like to say that people have more to offer the world than just one pathetic thing, but some people really...don't. The essence of the character's limited personality is captured in this memorable exchange:

Randy "The Ram" Robinson: Goddamn they don't make em' like they used to.
Cassidy: Fuckin' 80's man, best shit ever!
Randy "The Ram" Robinson: Bet'chr ass man, Guns N' Roses!
Cassidy: Crue!
Randy "The Ram" Robinson: Yeah!
Cassidy: Def Lep!
Randy "The Ram" Robinson: Then that Cobain pussy had to come around and ruin it all.
Cassidy: Like there's something wrong with just wanting to have a good time?
Randy "The Ram" Robinson: I'll tell you somethin', I hated the fuckin' 90's.
Cassidy: Fuckin' 90's sucked.
Randy "The Ram" Robinson: Fuckin' 90's sucked.

I guess Nirvana were just too introspective for this guy. But just because he's a one-trick pony doesn't mean he's a worthless human being undeserving of our sympathy. If I were his daughter, I'd hate him too. But it's not her movie, it's his. Even shitty wrestler fathers deserve a movie of their own sometimes.

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

Frost/Nixon (Howard)

When he's not passing the blunt in the club, Ron Howard is busy transforming Peter Morgan plays into Oscar-nominated films. Peter Morgan has been on a bit of a hot streak lately. I guess he's the go-to guy for finely-nuanced historical/political dramas. Shortly after Frost/Nixon made its appearance as a Broadway play, Hollywood hit us with the Morgan-penned double whammy of The Queen and The Last King of Scotland. Now that Frost/Nixon is a movie, I have to say that I don't think it's as good as either of those two.

First of all: big deal. I'm not convinced that these interviews were all that important. It seems like Peter Morgan just wanted to tackle Nixon from a fresh, overlooked angle. Maybe a movie about Pat Nixon's secret vibrator or something, but not this. Another problem is that in the age of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Nixon is kind of old news. Back in the '90s, it was sort of shocking to think about Nixon. Like, "Wow, what a complex, conflicted guy, I can't believe our president was that Shakespearean." But now we have Sarah Palin. I don't think this movie is as profound as it wants to be.

It's funny how these things work. When I first heard about Frost/Nixon, I thought, "Hmm, that sounds good, Nixon's always fascinating, etc." But when I saw the movie I felt like I'd been there, done that. When I first heard about The Queen I thought, "Bor-ing, I don't understand everybody's obsession with the royal family anyway, why the hell would I want to see this?" But when I saw it! He made the Queen of England seem way more interesting than she probably really is. She has to pass gas like everybody else, you know?

That's the problem. I have yet to see a cinematic portrayal of Nixon that's more interesting to watch than actual footage of Nixon himself. Every actor stepping into the role, be they Anthony Hopkins or Philip Baker Hall, always makes him seem too angry, too pathetic, too unhinged. The real Nixon had a smooth, congenial side to him. For thirty years he was able to convince a large portion of America that he was a perfect model citizen. Dick didn't always come off so damn tricky. Frank Langella gives it his best shot but the question remains: is this film more interesting to watch than footage of the actual Frost/Nixon interviews? I just took a peek at a couple of clips on YouTube, I have my answer, and Ron Howard isn't going to like it.

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

Slumdog Millionaire (Boyle)

So close, and yet so far. Faint whiffs of greatness, only to be smothered by the rancid stench of screenwriting methane. I always know I'm in trouble when the reviews say it's a "feel-good movie." What that really means is "vapid wish-fulfillment movie." This one had some serious potential though. For at least the first hour, I was totally feeling it. First of all, as with City Of God, it was great to see a film about a part of the world which is extremely populated but which I know nothing about. Then I began getting that sinking sensation. You know, when you start to realize that a movie bringing up all these deep, primal emotions really has no interest in saying anything insightful about them? As soon as the credits rolled I said to myself, "Oops."

I also lowered my expectations when I found out the director was Danny Boyle. Boyle seems to me like one of those directors who must have had a really different childhood than I did. Whatever he wants out of cinema, it's not what I want. Trainspotting was entertaining because it was about people doing drugs and the soundtrack was great, but this is probably the fourth time I've thought about it since I saw it. Millions, like Slumdog Millionaire, was another silly movie about kids acquiring money through pure luck. I'm sorry, but that's just not a situation very many people find themselves in. If you had the freedom to pick whatever stories you wanted to film, what would compel you to pick stories like those? The guy definitely has the visual side of film making down, but the plots need some work. With Slumdog Millionaire, I kept wanting to reach in there and just give it a little...twist...just in a couple of places...hold still, this won't hurt a bit...but no. Everyone else in the theater seemed to be loving it though. Oh, how they were loving it. Personally, I couldn't wait to get home so I could go put on Midnight Cowboy.

(Slight spoiler warning):

I want to see Slumdog Millionaire 2, where the kid is forced by the Indian government to give up 70% of his winnings to taxes and an endless sea of sleazy stalkers constantly break into his house and he and the hot Indian girlfriend bicker about the phone bills and the laundry and it all just turns to shit.

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

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button (Fincher)

Or, as I call it, The Curious Case Of The Oscars Totally Fucking Up Cinema. Here we have a movie that could have been delightful as simply a low-key, oddball comedy along the lines of Being There or Zelig and instead I feel like, somewhere along the line, some enterprising young studio exec must have stood up in a meeting and said, "No, no, no, we can win like - a zillion Oscars with this baby!" and so they molded it, however awkwardly, into an English Patient or Titanic wannabe. I don't care whether or not David Fincher wins an Oscar; I just want to see an uncluttered, organic cinematic experience. They sprayed this movie with too many pesticides.

First of all, let me ask you something: what's the moral of a story where a guy ages backwards? I mean, so what? His life's basically the same, except that it's...a little different. Aside from this little twist, Benjamin Button could have essentially been about a person who ages normally. It was like a mildly weird big-budget drama. They should have made it odder, stranger. Even Forrest Gump was weirder than this movie.

That said, as Oscar bait movies go, this is some Oscar bait I'm willing to watch. Even though there are about a gajillion flaws, for some indescribable reason, every scene in this movie is absorbing. If it's not a deep movie, it feels like a deep movie. Also, unlike most films made today, it is actually a pleasure to look at. Yeah, so Fincher doesn't really exploit the gimmick to its full potential, but, on the other hand, that's kind of what I like about it. It's a gimmicky movie that doesn't rely on its gimmick. True, there is no obvious "point" to this movie, but honestly, in an age of Crash and Million Dollar Baby, that's sort of refreshing. I mean, who says a movie has to have a big fat point?

Still, so many things do not work: 1) the whole Hurricane Katrina framing device; 2) Benjamin is born old but still the size of an infant - WTF? Apparently in the short story he's just born as an old man, proper size and everything. That would have made more sense. The bottom line is, I'm not exactly sure what David Fincher was hoping to say here. I believe Eric Roth was simply involved in an Oscar-winning screenwriter's exercise, which was to see if he could rewrite Forrest Gump and still win an Oscar. Well guys, they say it's an honor just to be nominated.

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

Milk (van Sant)

Why didn't somebody tell me he was gay?

I saw Milk at the Castro Theater in San Francisco, and although I'm glad I did, in some ways I almost wished I hadn't, because it's made my subsequent attempt to judge the actual quality of the film almost impossible. Basically the audience had already made up its mind about the movie before it even began. "Harvey Milk was a great guy and this movie is a great movie!" Well hold on a second, can I just watch it first? This is why I sometimes think the only way to properly see a movie, contrary to popular wisdom, is to watch it alone in my room.

Harvey Milk didn't really have a character arc in this film. Aside from a brief scene at the beginning, he essentially started out believing in gay rights and he died believing in gay rights. That's not really a story. That might be a political stance you could support, but it's not a story. I think about my favorite movie protagonists and they're all conflicted and weak and confused and uncertain - like me! Certainty doesn't film so well. I think of Rick from Casablanca, or Charles Foster Kane, or T.E. Lawrence, or Travis Bickle. Now these are some guys I can get behind. These guys actually had some problems. It seems like Harvey Milk's biggest problem was other peoples' homophobia. That's cool, but it's not exactly going to move me.

A great biopic also has to teach me something about myself. Watching Gandhi or Malcolm X or Ray made me think about my own life and the struggles I've faced and the choices I've made and haven't made. I didn't relate to Milk in that way. I needed more of his inner experience. I wanted those long, quiet moments where I could contemplate the infinite mystery of the universe. Instead I felt like I was watching a historical tribute.

As such, it was terrific. Van Sant filmed Milk the way I think movies should be filmed: energetically, humorously, spontaneously, etc. I mean, a film like this could have been really bad. I think it deserved its Oscar nominations. Sean Penn is not an actor I've particularly cherished; as someone on Slate put it, "The man has all but Lewinskied Castro's cigar." But he didn't bother me in Milk at all, which is to say that he did his job. I never thought about Sean Penn during the movie; I thought about Harvey Milk. So am I supposed to lick Sean Penn's feet because he did what he was supposed to do?

There is a movie inside Milk that I enjoyed a great deal and it was the movie about Harvey Milk, Dan White, George Moscone and San Francisco politics circa 1978. I would have rather seen a movie that focused solely on the city government intrigue. I can see Gus van Sant and Dustin Lance Black jumping up in protest and shouting "But why marginalize the most important figure?!" I don't know, because it might have been more interesting that way? As a lifelong resident of the Bay Area and as someone who currently lives in the city in question, I found the illumination of local history fascinating. I've never seen a movie that made being a city supervisor seem so...glamourous, and...and... dangerous! Usually when I think of assassinations I think of presidents or dictators, not mayors and city supervisors. Shows what I knew.

It was also nice to see a film that was really shot on location in San Francisco, and not in the same eight blocks that are featured in every other San Francisco movie. Often I find myself walking around in some neighborhood or some park and thinking, "This would be a good shot in a San Francisco movie, why hasn't anybody used this street God damn it?!" There are tons of little pockets around the city that I think have yet to be exploited. Milk only scratched the surface, but it was nice to see a little sprinkling of it anyway. Unfortunately, I don't believe the city has made it very cheap to film here, so I doubt we'll be seeing too many more exotic San Francisco locales in Hollywood movies any time soon. Unless Cosmic American Blog generates the funding for its own award-caliber movie, of course. What do you say, guys?

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

Synecdoche, New York (Kaufman)

There's a scene, early on in Synecdoche, where Philip Seymour Hoffman stares into the toilet at green, malformed shit, trying to establish exactly what it means. That might describe my reaction to this movie. Staring at green, malformed shit is interesting, certainly, but at some point you just need to flush it down.

As the world's biggest fan of Adaptation., you could say I was looking forward to Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut as much as anyone. Well here it is and be careful what you wish for. Ladies and gentlemen, Charlie Kaufman has finally managed to lodge himself up his own asshole. That might sound like a recommendation. Perhaps it is. On Rotten Tomatoes, the "fresh" reviews almost sound negative, and the "rotten" reviews almost sound positive. Some snippets:

Nearly a month after watching Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut... I'm still figuring out whether it was a brilliant idea poorly executed or a poor idea brilliantly executed.

One of those movies that's full of ideas and sparks lively discussions after the lights come up. Too bad that actually sitting through the thing feels like torture.

He goes for Fellini's 8 1/2 but comes up 8 short.

A great big incomprehensible phantasmagoria. I'm all for 'personal' movies, but this one's private.

Watching the film is also wearying, like assembling a puzzle from a box into which a sadist continually pours new pieces.

You can't help but think this must be what it looks like when your life flashes before your eyes.

That should give you some idea. So what do I think? Well, by the basic standards of "Is this film interesting/creative/imaginative/compelling/etc.," I would have to say that Synecdoche is a success. But by the standards of "Did this film improve my life in a significant way," I would have to say not particularly. I hesitate to bash a movie for being too ambitious. Maybe Synecdoche made me realize how much of a key piece Spike Jonze must have been in Kaufman's earlier successes. Jonze's music-video-skater-punk-prankster vibe really complimented and counterbalanced Kaufman's neurotic anti-social intellectualism quite well I thought. Without Jonzes' touch, or even Michel Gondry's, it appears that Kaufman's most impenetrating tendencies have gone unchecked. And I mean unchecked. It's sort of like Morrissey without Marr. It's like Damon Albarn without Graham Coxon. Synecdoche is more Think Tank than Modern Life Is Rubbish, more Vauxhall & I than Louder Than Bombs. Sure, Vauxhall & I is worth a listen, but is it better than Louder Than Bombs? I don't need to wait for your reply.

A while back Jason wrote in the comments section, "From what I hear, this movie is about a guy building a SCALE MODEL of New York City. I'm sold." Yeah I was sold too. Except Kaufman completely mutes the impact of that gag. See, the whole movie exists in a Lynchian dreamscape, so it's one of those "I don't have to make anything plausible because it's all surreal and dreamy" sort of deals. Been there done that buddy. I also didn't detect much of a strong visual flare. And the acting is a bit on the catatonic side. A movie can be ambitious and intelligent and still have energy, right? I don't think Kaufman got the memo. I'm reminded of a scene from the Simpsons where Homer flips the channel and catches Garrison Keillor on TV. After a couple of seconds, he throws a bottle of beer at the screen and says, "Stupid TV. Be more funny!" That's me at the screening of Synecdoche.

Roger Ebert has blown a gasket over Synecdoche. He's not "wrong," of course, but I don't know if he's bothered to put the film into any kind perspective (hell, when you watch so many movies that aren't even trying, as Ebert does, you probably become flabbergasted by a movie that actually is, even if you can't quite pinpoint why it's good). Some excerpts: "This is a film with the richness of great fiction." Yeah, but all great movies should have the richness of great fiction. "The subject of Synecdoche, New York is nothing less than human life and how it works." Yeah, but the subject of any great movie is nothing less than human life and how it works. "It is obvious that he [Kaufman] has only one subject, the mind, and only one plot, how the mind negotiates with reality, fantasy, hallucination, desire and dreams." Yeah, that's only one subject and only one plot, all right. Ebert's reaching for some grand, overarching Kaufman thesis, but I don't see bupkus. And he's acting like he's never seen an ambitious, intelligent movie before. Hate to break it to you Roger, but these topics have been covered in cinema prior to Charlie Kaufman. Well so what, you say? People criticized Adaptation. on the same grounds: "That whole meta-fiction thing has been done so many times already." Yeah, but the difference is that Adaptation. was funny. At least I thought it was funny. Synecdoche is just a dense modernist headache. But hey, if you love dense modernist headaches, then by all means, check it out.

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