Kogumik hiljuti kirjutatud lühiarvustusi

Miks inglise keeles? Lihtsalt proovimise mõttes. Ma tean, et mu keeleoskus pole eeskujulikul tasemel, aga proovida võib ju ikka, mh ah?

***

2009 A Single Man
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1315981/?licb=0.31645413518825116
(good)
More selfindulgent than deep, but it does have substance along style, and Tom Ford knows style extremely well, as expected. Beautiful movie and good actors. Exactly the kind of stuff I like Colin Firth for, as opposed to disposable family fare from either side of the big pond.
The only letdown was seeing no worthy material for Nicholas Hoult who really shines in Skins but is used as just a cute window-dressing everywhere else I've seen him in, especially in the US.



2009 After.Life
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0838247/
(mediocre)
Don't worry, the existential part is only decoration, the producers wouldn't want us to get bored or something. The Hollywood powers are after The Twilight crowd because being dead and yet somehow alive seems the way to go these days. They don't have anything interesting to say but betting on death porn disguised as macabre epic always helps, right?
Well, kind of. I guess watching Christina Ricci all sullen and red-lingerie wearing (later often naked!) is not the worst way to spend some time, especially when other actors with very different roles add some variety. The only meaty part belongs to the fatherly and always-solid Liam Neeson who is paid to provide the movie with exactly said qualities, and even manages to suppress some dullness.
The first hour is pretty vapid and soulless, the rest is actually a little better, picking on intensity and even relatable drama (this is where Long can show some acting chops, and he's good).
After.Life doesn't have enough of anything to really deserve a recommendation, but it gets better while you wait, this I can promise. Otherwise, stick to Six Foot Under or something.



2009 Defendor
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1303828/
(good)
I wouldn't quite call it a gem but Defendor really stands out in its genre if you happen to discover it; most people didn't. One for the true Woody Harrelson's fans, then.
It's a Rorschach test of a movie which never quite finds a true genre or central tone but the authors don't even want it to. In fact, they use the ambiguity for a good effect, mixing superheroism, biting human drama, bitter humor and lo-fi action. Also, the low-budget project has a cheap look and strong feel of 80's B-movies which will probably help to decide the measure of your enjoyment.
This is very much Harrelson's one man show who has a great character and gives a delicate, nuanced and engaging performance. In the best moments, this greatly compensates the cheapness of the production and the simplicity of the story which do make the movie a little dull sometimes.
There's something so raw, animal-like and feeble in Harrelson's performance that it's hard not to be touched. He could have easily played it for some laughs along the drama but the apparent dedication and sympathy for the material never made them choose the easy way. He's not here to entertain but to offer some character study of a man in search of a soul. But just how demented is the character exactly? Even if you're not sure, there's plenty of hints to keep the interest.
The other characters are not there to add depth to story but some color and variety to the environment which is (and is meant to be) lifeless and visually ominous.
The best part is Elias Koteas's deliciously evil two-bit gangster who brings a surprising amount of charm from a role so impoverished on paper. Even he manages to not go for the cheap laughs although he can be seen as a nearest thing to a comic relief here.
Defendor will stimulate more cerebrally than as demented superhero movie starring Woody Harrelson which can be a pretty good selling point theoretically. Just don't come expecting gripping action and belly laughs, and you have a chance to recognize the quiet charms Defendor certainly has.
And if you just just crave for some flashy exciting superhero stuff, 2010's great double hit (Kick-Ass; Scott Pilgrim vs the World) is still well worth your time, beating everything pure Hollywood machinery could turn out.



2009 Amelia
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129445/
(dull)
There's nothing to excite me personally, just wanted to watch an unseen movie starring Swank, McGregor, Gere, and kill some time in hospital, natch.
It's a decidedly old-fashioned Oscar bait of a film: slow, gorgeous production values, empty, pleasant, has nothing to say or even offer to the actors.
If you like soulless niceness, as many little girls of all ages and both sexes simetimes do, then it is worth about 111 minutes of your time.



2009 Brooklyn's Finest
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210042/
(very good)
How to make a slick action drama about tough life on city streets: the ultimate edition. Extremely well put together, if you don't mind Antoine Fuqua mixing what works in Training Day with Paul Haggis' Crash (interwining different stories, trying to find harmony in the cacophony). OK, so it doesn't say anything new but everybody here knows what to do and does it impressively, or at least well.
Fuqua develops its very own style only for the stunning finale, but a superb reworking of seemingly all the ghetto drama cliches under the sun does still a cool 130+ minutes of genre pic make.
If you crave something unique from this kind of thing, perhaps you still haven't seen the legendary The Wire (especially seasons 1-3)? Nothing will ever beat that, or come even close.
Brooklyn's Finest managed to almost completely disappear in the outer world, so here's hoping for luck in the realm of home cinema, if not some later cult fame based on warm word of mouth.



2009 Chloe
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1352824/
(so-and-so)
Minimalistic desire drama about finding the meaning in the normal life we think we want at somme point. The wife and the pay-girl create the affair for the husband to prove he does not want her anymore, and it gets complicated, of course.
Most of the screen time belongs to the two great actresses, Moore and Amanda Seyfried as an intriguing if sinister hooker (fresh and deliciously different role from her usual family friendly fare). She's playing it cool 'while Moore gets to burn emotionally, and both are joy to watch.
Being plot-driven instead of character-based always brings a risk of the watchers suddenly not really caring about the story any more, especially when significant turns come in. That's also happens here: the crucial endgame lacks steam and flirts uselessly with stalker thriller elements, doesn't satisfy, leaves without emotional punch or payoff.
Chloe has enough for one-time entertainment, including some nice woman nakedness (mostly by Seifried, also short but satisfying girl-on-girl action with Moore). Clean look, fast tempo, up close & personal camerawork, simple no-nonsense dialogue. End credits in less than 90 minutes.
The pic doesn't really seem to want us to relate but to get results, which makes it eligible as some kind of modern art.
By the way, it's also a remake of not very old French erotic thriller; once-legendary director Atom Egoyan still trying to capture his 90s glory days as a guy who kind of understood the subtle art of making erotic movies with not just a skin cinema audience in mind.



2009 Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450405/?licb=0.7592040369511683
(so-and-so)
Based on the beginning of the series of books I've not read, so no comparisions here.
A film of two halves. The first hour is flat-out entertaining and fun joyride in the world the makers want to create and us to believe in, a fantasy- and stage-like environment of assorted children of the night most people don't know exist among them.
Here, the movie offers lots of personality, good vibes, inventiveness and likeable performances from a motley crew of actors. The two starring kids are likeable, although the future nemesis always more so than protagonist.
And then... the makers kind of discover or decide they need some plot too. Out with the inventiveness, in with cheap looking action (the relatively modest budget just doesn't let it stand along the current visual level of adventure movies). The characters just mumble around, the setpieces are uninvolving and the previous charm just disappears!
To be fair, the ending does win back some of the earlier good vibes, but the result is just a mess. And the box office results coupled with a lack of studio support predict the sequels are out of question.



2009 Cold Souls
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127877/
(very good)
Thank god for Andy Kaufman's commercial success! Based on imdb.com credits he's got nothing to do with Cold Souls personally but this kind of refreshing indie weirdness with pop appeal would not get to exist otherwise.
To have more bankability, they have a ace card in the form of Paul Giamatti as leading man. As we would expect from an great actor like him, he's perfect for the job, turning it his one man show at times but still letting the unique and fragile story to breathe.
The performances are good all around, special shout going out to always solid Strathairn who steals the screen as easily as Giamatti when he's around.
But the movie's mainly about Giamatti, doing what he's known and loved for (angsty middle-aged everyman) - this time in a kaufmanesque sci-fi setting. Meaning? The world itself seems quite real but the story revolves about soul merchants who let us put it in the box for several reasons, or even get a new one from anonymous donor. This is mainly a plot device to give the characters stuff to do but it also works for the general movie's favor, adding to fairytalish atmosphere.
This kind of mild sci-fi human dramas were kind of way to go in 1960-70s I guess, before Jaws and Star Wars changed the pop culture forever.
Giamatti gives a wonderful performance, often gloriously over the top yet never going for cheap laughs. It's a comic yet moving portrayal on the angst of just living without knowing oneself, accessible and believable, nuanced and always note-perfect. He's like an engaging little animal, animated and always joy to watch.
Kaufman himself may have gone off the deep end with his recent work (Synechdoche, New York) for most of the audience including me. So cheers for Cold Souls, for bringing back some of the original inventive madness without most of the wider appeal.



2009 Crazy Heart
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1263670/
(very good)
Feel good movie about being 57 years old down and out country star, taking it a day at a time. Simple, well told and played movie which doesn't try to philosophise, be clever or hook you in any way. If you like what they're doing, you'll want to stick around and that's all they're offering.
Actors are a joy, especially Bridges in the central role which won him an Oscar (the other Oscar went to the theme song which I don't care about). Bridges and Farrell also did their own singing.
It was his fifth time to get nominated, and a damn fine soulful performance too, so Bridges winning is cool. My second choice would have been Jeremy Renner in The Hurt Locker.
And yes, Crazy Heart is The Wrestler in country music setting. It's not original or unique but it has a lot of heart and the makers use the simplicity to their advantage.



2009 Everybody's Fine
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780511/
(good)
Please don't let it be something similar to disposable Meet the Parents series, was the first thought. These days, it's so easy to assume the worst from De Niro, especially in a holiday movie.
Actually, the christmas release in the US must have been connected to the hope of joining the awards season; but everybody happened to be just fine without another De Niro movie and largely ignored this little treat.
Which is a shame because this is a pretty strong drama. Based on 1990's much more sugary Italian movie Stanno tutti bene starring Marcell Mastroianni, what we have here is a widowed man's roadtrip to see all his children and find out what's really happening with their lives.
De Niro spends much time alone or with passing trivial characters, the siblings join the screen together only in the end. There's enough talk but the story's more about not knowing your place in the world when the old roles shed away and being on the road to find new direction, giving the result a lonely (and at better times) meditative feel. Everybody's Fine is not here to make you warm and fuzzy. In fact, it is rather dry and doesn't hurry to shed light on character background or why you should necessarily care - this is why I call call merely 'good'.
The actors are all very capable but this is really about De Niro doing his best, chewing into material and bringing it to life as he was once famous for. His natural nuanceful work could have easily fit into the 2010's five nominees for the Best Actor Academy Award - I always thought Morgan Freeman in Invictus was more of a political choice anyway.
Between 2000 and now, De Niro has appeared in over twenty movies. I've seen almost every one of these, and for the fans of his talent there are really only two I'd care to recommend: Everybody's Fine and Stone (both 2010). Here's hoping for some revival of once legendary actor.



2009 Endgame
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217616/?c=1
(good)
I have a deep dislike against anything to do with politics, and zero interest in the story of Apartheid in South Africa, so I can't really comment on how (historically) accurate Endgame might be.
What I can say is that this is a fairly engaging drama about serious men talking seriously all the time and doing useful stuff, so you could also view it as a variation of men on a mission type of movie. Just don't expect flashy stuff, they are here to talk and look important.
The ending turns out to be surprisingly moving for a dry story such as this; I was able to relate more deeply than in, say, 2010's Invictus which covers the same topic, although in hugely different setting and with probably more mass appeal.
Watched it for the three starring actors, anyway.



2009 Fish Tank
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232776
(good)
What it's like to be young and futureless in the shittier part of modern UK. It starts like a general social commentary (central character, 15 year old girl dicking around, getting into petty trouble) but quickly evolves into something much better than rowdy youth film.
Fish Tank is a sharp look into the dynamics that shape us, starting with background and social milieu, continuing with how we are right now and the significant others around us. The story is trivial, the focus is on the little details of heroine's interacting with surroundings, what is interesting to her, makes her act out, etc.
Character study this deep is rarely everybody's cup of tea, and you'll have to find something about these people, naturally, to stick around. The life is very ordinary, doesn't grab in any special way, and the main character is not exactly nice (the others are not necessarily better).
Katie Jarvis in her only movie role so far is fresh and believable, sharing the same background as her character, but Michael Fassbender as mom's new boyfriend saves the overall experience, bringing light and some sunshine to this super grim drama which is hard to take for many, I'd guess.
At two hours, it gets a little tedious at times, but the final third is consistently so surprisingly powerful and at times heavily symbolistic that you gotta give credit to screenwriter-director Andrea Arnold masterfully orchestrating everything, although she's more famous for short movies.
The title seems an apt metaphor of peeking into the life of this girl, however. There's something raw and fragile to see, the process of becoming in the murky water. I can see why it was so well received during festival season, and largely ignored in the wider release.



2009 Hachiko: A Dog's Story
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1028532/
(bad)
Director Lasse Hallström is very much into creating cinematic comfort food (nice to look at, low on any real nutrients) and Gere stopped searching for meaning in making movies after 1990's feelgood hit Pretty Woman.
There is some challenging and memorable work in his post-1980's resume but mostly he just couldn't be bothered and sells us his silvery locks and kind face. So it's not really surprising to see those two team up to create what can be only considered the ultimate family movie where being nice is not just a way of life, it's the only thing there is.
This story about college professor and his wonderful dog really has to be seen to be believed. Not for gaining anything, it's only about 90 minutes long and nothing worthwhile happens. Even the dog does not do much because he's not the type of pet who wants to be liked, he only needs a true master because he comes from Japan.
But you just have to see how the ultimate piece of family entertainment is born. Welcome to Blandville, USA where nothing bad happens, everybody is just naturally nice and doesn't bother you (and is usually just standing around to serve you or change some lines), everything works out just fine and things just work! You don't even have to see the dog poop or pee during the whole of the movie because such things could at least hint at some trouble, like on a carpet.
Having said that, this only covers the first hour, continuing with a sudden turn which erases the only element holding the story together and leaving everybody (watching and on screen) to meander aimlessly. The makers try to gamble to add poignancy and some existential beauty and sadly lose the bet. You will beg them to stop and just admit the defeat but the sorry mess drags on another thirty minutes, offering maybe one or two minutes' worth of payoff.
So check the first hour to witness the making of cinematic history, skipping the rest if you're just a human and not, say, film critic on an endurance test or something.
Hachiko really is the dullest type of movie dog which doesn't do literally anything but look gorgeous as a puppy and just gazes around later (including some jumps to his master's hips). Why bother making an animal movie for so little?
By the way, it's based on a true story from 1920-30's Japan, and 1987's Japanese movie! Gere did an unexpected Japanese remake also in 2004 (pretty good Shall We Dance?), because he's Buddhist and it probably sounded neat. Here's hoping for the better third.



2009 Gamer
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034032/
(bad)
What the screenwriters-directors behind the batshit-crazy Crank movies did next (filmed before Crank 2 as imdb.com mentions).
Turns out they were tired of just straight action although Gamer was also marketed as such, opting for highly stylized near-future utopia about modern technology world turning us into junkie slaves.
The result is a sorry mess: the action scenes are mostly aimless, nobody does or says any interesting stuff, the world is incohesive (partly due to their approach), the social commentary is abysmally weak. The good news: after 10-15 minutes, you'll definitely know if the general style suits you. If only the direction had something going for it, instead looking like a very long music video which offers visual cheapness in the guise of being pretentious.
The last ten minutes or so - finale on the bad guy's turf - are surprisingly engaging and thought-out. The rarely-seen bad guy himself (character as well the actor, Six Feet Under's and Dexter's Michael C. Hall) is the only decent thing in the movie, like a twisted Mark Zuckerberg. Of course it's not gonna save anything anymore, I'm just commenting.
Even their next script, for 2010's widely despised Jonan Hex, turned out a little better so I wouldn't hold my breath for the duo's upcoming sequel to Ghost Rider.



2009 Get Low
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194263
(very good)
It gathered a few nominations and no Oscar glory at all (or wider fame whatsoever), but make no mistake - this is something of a film lover's hidden gem. I still have too much to see to be exactly sure, but Get Low may be 2009's second worthiest movie, just after Coens' A Solitary Man.
Nothing is for everyone, naturally, but this has got everything right down as they planned. A lovely-looking period drama (1930s Tennessee), unique but accessible character study (hermit looking for long-due redemption, planning his funeral while he's alive), believable well fleshed-out characters, strong performances from everybody, a touch of black humor, original story that keeps you guessing and that nice powerhouse feeling you get from just watching everybody at the top of the game.
This kind of sharp writing is usually known only in the very best quality drama series the US has to offer.
Lots of great acting around, but Robert Duvall as a man looking for redemption is so captivating and elegant that not giving him at least Academy Award nomination is simply beyond me. 2010 had a pretty solid lineup in the best actor category but preferring Morgan Freeman (Invictus) over this kind of powerhouse stuff? Come on!



2009 I Hate Valentine's Day
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0762105/
(bad)
Mainstream romantic comedies doesn't hold interest for me anymore but I enjoyed 2002's My Big Fat Greek Wedding too much to miss Nia Vardalos' and John Corbett's second pairing (the man is super cool anyway). I Hate Valentine's Day, also written and even directed by Vardalos, is, sadly, just awful.
Surprising already with tasteless screamingly red beginning credits, everything is just wrong from the go. The movie has a striking cheap sitcom feel, with a bunch a lifeless characters aimlessly trying to breathe some life in lifeless dialogue, and Vardalos has all the charm and warmth of a toad queen. She doesn't even seem to blink, or maybe I wasn't perceptive enough.
Also, she literally likes to choke us with trite cliches about knowing all the rules in the life game while straight men are just totally clueless. This is mostly what the character is about, and it grows tedious superquickly.
It's easy to imagine the movie meant as a statement on soullessness of generic sitcoms and rom-coms but this does not make the result less awful itself.
To add insult to the injury, the story just stops around 50 minutes or so, making us watch how Vardalos is trying justify and make us care about the asshole-ish character, blaming her dad cheating on mom and making Corbett's character look bad for not trying to compensate mistakes made by her.
There are some fleeting moments of warmth, Corbett couldn't not add it even if he tried. And the comic relief, Jay O. Sanders as seldom-seen Tim, is really pretty funny.
But make no mistake, even for 85-minute V-day movie, it's too long and way too crappy. Please don't try directing anymore, Nia, your ultimate indie experiment sucks horribly.



2009 Love Happens
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0899106/?licb=0.9715293666657855
(dull)
Dull drama about self-help guru finding his way through a mourning period, with some help from a special lady, natch.
No-nonsense approach helps to compensate for the lack of interesting events or general fire within, the characters keep it simple and don't fool with words, even Dan Fogler is actually serious which is a big surprise given his wild comic relief image in movies.
Personally, I'd love to see Eckhart in darker and/or more original material again, he can be amazing in a more inspired setting. I guess stuff like Love Happens and Rabbit Hole is good for developing a wider career possibilities or something but for a fan, it sure got mundane quickly.
Still, my man Eckhart and good looking Jennifer Aniston are in a fine form and have enough chemistry to pull it through. Nearly two hours for this is just too long, especially for a story which covers diverse ground and touches several topics but leaves everything woefully underdeveloped. But the finale is too sugary it's pathetic.
The only thing with some real soul here is actually John Carroll Lynch in smaller role as grieving father.
Strongly recommend 2005's Thank You for Smoking instead - similar but much more fun and inspired film, also starring Eckhart. Or more recent, 2010's Love and Other Drugs (Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathaway) - much more passionate and fun, although uneven and too long.



2009 Happy Tears
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219828/?licb=0.5803699281035537
(so-and-so)
Two very different daughters (Moore, Parker Posey) trying to take care of their ailing father who is entering the dark age of dementia.
This is clearly an actors' movie which is offering more to the performers (and naturally screenwriter-director) than watchers. All are very dependable and capable, finding enthusiasm exploring the nuances of the characters, even or especially the smaller roles like Torn's nutty patriarch and Ellen Barkin's deliciously trashy golddigger past her best-before date.
The main and continuing problem is finding the right tone and balance which the creative minds never achieved here. It starts as Posey's one-woman-show but the character isn't fleshed out enough to hold our interest for long. Then it's dark comedy or drama about the dynamics of the family but it lacks excitement, real revelations or willingness to explore; underusing Barkin is real mistake here, in my opinion. At last it tries to be deep but in a pretty-looking music video kind of way, not adding any symbolism or themes of lasting value.
So, Happy Tears has its strengths, mainly strong cast, and the result is not bad. But not good either. So it became a little festival movie that would continue mostly straight-to-DVD.



2009 Handsome Harry
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1318001/?licb=0.14008320474557456
(very good)
Simple yet powerful story about titular character (Jamey Sheridan) looking for redemption for a brutal act committed by five young men in the Navy.
It's basically a series of reunions in the form of a road movie in which Harry drives around and talks to people. As you've guessed by my rating "very good", sometimes it's all it takes to elevate a simple exposition to something of a born classic.
Dirt-cheap (made for 1 million USD) project like this lives or dies on the commitment of the cast and crew, and all is more than well on this front. They manage even the rarely-seen treat in the movies: a world filled with enough soul, style and personality so one wouldn't mind spending more time there. It doesn't happen often enough.
The performances are all moving and powerful, especially the central five men (Sheridan, Scott, Steve Buscemi, Aidan Quinn, John Savage, Titus Welliver). It's amazing how much the talented actors can take out of characters which doesn't have much of a backstory or time to get properly fleshed out on screen, and make us care. The shining star is nuanced and delicate Sheridan as Handsome Harry but every single one of them is memorable, even Buscemi whose screen time is extremely limited.
It's essentially an enjoyable boys' movie about dignity, being noble and such but homosexuality as one of the central themes doesn't make it quite appropriate for any kind of boys' night. Luckily one finds tons of, say, more mainstream alternatives, about funny black guys blowing shit up and so.
In a way, a fitting companion piece to A Single Man, also 2009 and unusual choice for boys' movie night.



2009 Life During Wartime
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808526/
(good)
Has 1990's American indie's dark prince Todd Solondz really lost his touch, or did the world just move on? Based on Life During Wartime, I say he can still produce biting work on his subject of choice (the hidden side of the ordinary people) - it's just his work doesn't really have a financial appeal. Also, Solondz's people don't have the will and/or means to find the right angle to make the world care.
Critics seem to have mainly two bones to pick with this sequel to 1998's Happiness - replacing all the actors and not having any sympathy towards the characters anymore, recurring or new.
I didn't consider the first as a problem, Life During wartime doesn't feel like a sequel anyway. And I see Solondz's commitment and sympathy everywhere: fleshing out the characters and their lines naturally and beautifully; always giving sharp direction in every area from scene creation to acting so the result feels cohesive and thought-out; finding visual beauty in some scenes which could be just "beautiful" or artsy for artsy's sake... The cast is uniformly good, too.
There are problems, too: fragmented structure is hurting the story at times, one of the three stories just isn't engaging (abandoning Michael K. Williams's character does it the world of hurt), and I just didn't buy the ending.
I can't decide what's more damaging for mosaic like this: to have some duller threads in a long movie, or to not care about one third of a 95-minute movie. Either way, the result loses a chance to send us off with a memorable punch, kind of leaving the watcher hanging around like the characters, asking: is this it? So I'd rate it "good" but not "very good", for which there is a potential.
Life During Wartime is like an evil doppelgänger to 2000's Woody Allen's work: not so much of a genre work or entertainment than telling us stories about characters the author has taken some fancy in. The trouble is, Allen can't find the way to market these and Solondz doesn't even have money or known faces on his side. Shame. I generally like his take on everyday life's "normal" side, ie what the cool people are trying to hide.
It's not easy stuff but who wants easy if one can have excitement, eh?



2009 Life Is Hot in Cracktown
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901494/?licb=0.6432756268177267
(so-and-so)
You know, ghetto dramas ain't usually even that successful or attention-grabbing. That must be why big studios don't usually bother, but the lower levels of the industry just keep on churning them out. And here's another.
It's good enough to watch, especially if you haven't seen much of those, but there's nothing really to distinguish itself from the "good enough" pack which is big enough already.
Yes, it's gritty, sweary, shamelessly violent, fast enough to hold attention and well-enough-acted. If only they had something fresh to say or add, plus dialogue and characters are paper thin.
Mostly for those who are interested in any of the actors, then. The cast is nice-looking and has some (almost) known names like Shannyn Sossamon, Lara Flynn Boyle, Kerry Washington, last Superman Brandon Routh and RZA of Wu-Tang fame which you may recognize.
The leader of the pack is Evan Ross who has a lot of bad boy charm going on - probably that's why he's the new go-to guy for low-budget chrime thrillers, dramas and such if you look his latest filmography. Actually, he's at his most winning form currently in sugary teen soap 90210 but I guess it will remain only one of my guilty pleasures and not yours.
Is there really life in ghetto drama, after you've seen a whole bunch of them in the last 10-15 years. Screenwriter-director Buddy Giovinazzo based the work on his 1993's novel when truly groundbreaking crime series The Wire was the future and even Homicide had just begun. Life Is Hot would have turned quite a few heads then, now it's more of a filler. Of course, back in 1993 Giovinazzo didn't have all these now-known modern classics to copy from.



2009 Lebanon
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1483831/
(good)
I've never found the current wave of American war movies engrossing. For one, there's too much shallow popular TV drama style politics and good-looking famous actors to make them credible. Secondly, most of these movies are more of a producers' idea of good package (pretty faces, plenty of action, fast tempo, message) than exciting stories.
There's certainly a place for modern videogames' big gift to 21st century Hollywood. Why would we want to watch shrivelling Matt Damon with green snot on the face instead of squeaky-clean heroes and smooth engrossing action (or so the logic goes)... but the formula sure got old quickly.
OK, it's cool and modern to see many of the new wavers admitting that wars are mostly held to advance someone's financial interests, as it always has been. But the lack of any real deepness or something fresh to add doesn't make us admire the fast-overused message more.
Lebanon, financed by Israel, France, Lebanon and Germany, is a very different and refreshing war movie. It's about tank crew in the very beginning of the First Lebanon War in 1982, and it gives its good old "war is hell" slogan a deep meaning.
The authors show exactly what "hell" means. The four men in the tank are inexperienced, bored, afraid, exhausted by physical and claustrophobical and other psychological conditions. They are just young men thrown into war and they can't just fuck shit up because someone told them so. In fact, sometimes they are barely functioning at all...
Lebanon has been called the Das Boot of tank movies (the four central characters don't get out of the moving casket once), but it's more of a The Blair Witch Project of war movies. Cheap, short and sweet; light on action, heavy on suspense and the inner life of the participants.
It may not linger in the memory for long, and battle scenes are short and trivial for a war movie, but Lebanon is a good little drama nonetheless.



2009 In the Loop
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226774/
(so-and-so)
It's the feature-length rehash of currently popular British TV shows, this time in the shady world of politics. Fourth-wall breaking pointless monologues are luckily gone, the overall energy and sense of humor of, say, BBC's The Office, are still here.
Sadly, there are so many fresh charmless actors that the satire mostly don't bite as it should, and so it's often difficult to care about the fast-moving events on screen. The director and part-screenwriter Armando Iannucci knows what he's doing but there are limits to the young guns' punching power, or most likely his ability to bring out enough of it.
Everything is much more gripping with the experienced actors around (mostly Peter Capaldi, Gandolfini, Mimy Kennedy) who can elevate the happenings to really something like a proper movie, not way too long episode of new British comedy series where the cast can repeat the lines but not really dig into their characters.
I see it as an project which got way more fame than it deserved. The script may be good and witty but most of the performers really don't do it justice.



2009 Harry Brown
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289406
(so-and-so)
There's something about revenge movies, eh? Lone hero taking the payback into his own hands and doling out the punishment to the bad guys even if it kills him. Yeah.
Harry Brown promises to be something like that - with Michael Caine as a vigilante gunhappy pensioner against modern British city hoodlums - but turns out so strange that it could be enjoyed primarily as British answer to Luc Besson the producer's 2000's Eurotrash B-movie wave. Only with extra grittiness which doesn't really pay off in the long run.
Surprisingly, it starts out as a believable, well-acted drama about getting old and really losing your place in the society, examining Harry's feelings and everyday dealings with satisfying empathy and some proper depth.
Sadly, the story turns into paranoid "hoodlums are taking over our streets" territory too quickly, but the first 40-45 minutes is serious, letting Caine's acting skills shine, who's as fine as ever. Little interlude under the bridge seems a little out of place already, but all's fine, still.
The short middle chapter with Harry getting the gun paves way to a very different movie altogether and promises fun B-movie vengeance action, but that's not gonna happen and things go just wrong.
The third part is just tens of minutes of aimless experimenting where they don't seem to have much of a screenplay anymore, and the authors just try everything they can think of. It has street war, cop drama elements (the story of Harry was not considered dramatic anymore?), wish to expand the story on behalf of the young thugs (near the final of only 98-minute movie!) and, naturally, some room for Harry whom the authors clearly don't care about anymore.
It's all watchable stuff to the end but really guys, what were you thinking? Just throwing everything you can think of into the melting pot is not the way to go, at least based on the result. There are not many movies which seem so well put-together for a while and then truly degenerate and lose it till the end credits put it out of the misery.



2009 Law Abiding Citizen
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1197624/
(so-and-so)
It cost 40-50 million dollars? Law Abiding Citizen must be the biggest project Saw's success has given birth yet, and definitely the most ambitious.
The authors tried to add the inventiveness of Saw's torture-porn to political thriller (serious men in expensive suits, talking seriously) and even bring in some human drama, making family men of Butler's and Jaxx's central characters.
Too bad the story stops making sense long before the end but it's still pretty fun to see how it goes. It's batshit crazy and may require a huge amount of suspension of disbelief but the craziness is half the fun here, really. One may wonder how much they used Kurt Wimmer's original screenplay (who's still the only screenwriter officially listed).
I'd say Foxx's character needs some tongue-in-cheek attitude, his seriousness is too much for a movie this dumb.



2009 Leaves of Grass
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151359/
(good)
An oddball of a little movie from screenwriter-director Tim Blake Nelson (yes, better known as a funny looking actor), written with two starring Edward Nortons in mind which was the only choice.
It's about two identical twins, a college professor and an Oklahoman pot dealer, whose longdue reunion really shakes up the good ol' hometown.
Leaves of Grass feels like a feature-length TV series, really, and wouldn't have probably got made now if (popular but mostly mediocre after the first season) Weeds hadn't paved way for this kind of comedy / drama / light crime epic combination already.
But it turns out to be a very different beast indeed, with its own personality and ideas where to take the freewheeling story which feels cliched but certainly has surprises in waiting.
Colorful cast really knows how to bring alive the one-dimensional characters who turn out to be quite engaging; the always talented and committed Norton ever the star here, drawing out two quite different brothers who are joy to watch separately and also together. He believes in his characters and makes us believe that "one man in two parts" doesn't always have to settle for just some laughs, even if it's a (part) comedy.
Leaves of Grass is more than a sum of its parts. It's not really a worthwhile drama, comedy or action movie by its own, the story doesn't quite stand on its own, and sometimes the result just feels cheap and underdeveloped. Somehow they still make it work, even engaging, and offer enough rewards to keep us entertained (even moved). Norton is still the man, good enough for little fun projects!



2009 Youth in Revolt
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0403702
(excellent)
How much do you like what Michael Cera has to offer to American movies? Me, I have grown quite fond of him lately, thanks to superbness of 2010's Scott Pilgrim and its older brother, 2009's Youth in Revolt which I happen to love even more.
It doesn't have the same mass appeal as Pilgrim, but has even more heart and class. Surprisingly for a movie this short, the authors muster enough commitment for both breathing life into the characters and the world, too.
The excellent direction and sense of style really made me want to spend time in this world, providing constant giggles about how exactly they choose to present the material: the general look and feel, the behaviour of the characters and spoken dialogue. It really feels like a fresh experience, despite loans from Cera's other starring movies and, perhaps, some Wes Anderson's.
This is the true lovesong to modern geekness which has been tried to bring on screen in numerous movies and TV-shows, but nobody does it quite like Michael Cera if he has the right support behind and in front of the camera, which he certainly does have here. And they don't even have filler characters, everybody in this adventure is cool in some way, even Justin "Usually Bland" Long, no matter how little screen time they have.
Youth in Revolt is a pitch perfect nerd epic - fresh, funny, moving, sharp, well acted. Of 2009's films, the best pure entertainment I've seen yet. And it's easy to decide whether you would like it, too. Just think how much do you like Cera, especially in wesandersonian sauce! And it's not too long as Pilgrim!



2009 Shrink
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1247692/
(dull)
Heard the one about this therapist who can't help his clients nor himself anymore? Yeah, that evergreen one. Here's yet another indifference-inducing story of failing to be the guiding light, by and for the people who don't really get what self-growth is about.
Shrink evokes a continuous feeling of being based on half-funny sketch (Spacey as burned-out celebrity therapist) but they had to make a drama out of it, and not just any drama but something with different interwining stories. Yes, ambition equals copying Crash these days.
Unluckily, they had only general sense of style and attitude copied from better movies to work with but not good ideas of their own. The actors do what they can but the material; it's just the shrink is the only half-interesting character on screen, and even his drama turns engaging only sporadically (mostly in the final fifth).
Yes, fucked-up Spacey is cool to look at, but it's not enough for movie that long.
Shrink is like a nihilistic version of Dazed and Confused but with movie bizniz instead of high school. Believe me, it sounds much better on paper.



2009 The Road
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367
(good)
The postapocalyptic world is breathtaking and unique in visual sense, intriguing in general. The future adapters of the Dark Tower series should learn from here, how to create an environment so desolate and devoid of life that it has a personality and intrigue of its own.
Mortensen gives his all in equally physical and dramatic role as the man so over the edge that there is no edge anymore. It's mostly his show, his son is more of a storytelling device as person.
Theron's and Pearce's parts seem underdeveloped or the victims of the cutting-room, I would've cut them both completely, save a few minutes and the result would feel even better, more streamlined. Duvall, on the other hand, is one of the highlights, perfectly illuminating the nature of the human relationships in this brave new world.
My main gripe is the main character's son who just infuriates me and also ruins the ending. I can find justifications for both being the way they are but only conceptually. Just watching, which I have done already twice, I just hate the little shit for being such a pussy and danger to both, and don't buy the final minutes at all. In fact, delete the last minutes (the final encounter) and the result would earn "very good" without second thought. As it is, it's as believable as a clown nose on president.
Maybe longer future cuts or reading the original novel make me see them in a different light, but now I strongly dislike them.
So: good movie which should've been great; well worth time nonetheless.



2009 Perrier's Bounty
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1003034/
(good)
A perfectly acceptable crime comedy about small-time thug in deepening trouble over money. Performances by Murphy, Jim Broadbent and Brendan Gleeson make this a worthwhile genre filler. It's nothing special storywise and the finale is not worth the wait but it's entertaining while it lasts, with above average cast as mentioned. Yes, it rips off Guy Ritchie's first movies and buddy comedies but so what.



2009 Serious Moonlight
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1133993
(bad)
Husband wants to leave wife for a younger girl and go to Paris. Wife hits him unconscious with flower pot and decides to duck-tape him to chair, until he loves her again...
It's Meg Ryan's show again, and after all these years and after expiring her best-before date, she is still the same. American Sweetheart Has-Been still can't act (even Bell's brief first appearance has a curious power to outshine her in every way); she's still trying mainly to be cute, instead of finding a way into her character or material given. Just awful.
Serious Moonlight would work if it had somebody half-noteworthy in the female lead. Even Timothy Hutton as husband doesn't have any trouble finding just the right tone for the movie although his character is paperthin at the best of times.
So using Ryan in the lead must fulfill some secret girl-power fantasy by or pact between the director Cheryl Hines and Ryan, not necessarily serve the movie. Actually, the character is often annoying the way Hines in her biggest success, Curb Your Enthusiasm, so I choose the former.
I strongly dislike most of the big turns and threads in this laughably unbelievable movie, which to me succeeds only in fleshing out this one type of truly despisable modern woman. You know, the one whose love is like the love of the dog - having all these people and stuff in my life makes them mine, and I have to control them or I'll be reminded of sinking nothingness inside. (To wit, watch Ryan's monologue around 21 minutes in.)
Sadly, there's also a modern (?) psychological phenomenon of women's circle guard, ie always shielding the possible horribleness of women in general, usually "because I wouldn't like if someone talked that way about me". So Ryan's unpleasant character turns out to be fulfilling and worthy after all, husband the stupid but redeemable one and the young mistress a shallow bitch. And Ryan's character's horrible deeds like kidnapping a husband or taking his freedom for a long time just go away, never to have any negative impact on her life again, naturally. Would you let it go as easily if he was doing the nasty stuff?
It's a disgusting little comedy, not funny, also not able to jump over the low bar they set themselves.
But the other actors do a good job, so if you fancy seeing any of them, it's less than 90 minutes.



2009 Middle Men
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1251757/?licb=0.14571710631893664
(good)
The story of e-commerce pioneers, the guys who invented the software to use credit cards for internet payments. Boring and unsexy? It very well could be, so the authors constructed Middle Men as a crime story, with plenty of violence, glamour and glitz which could fill a long mafia epic.
Inspired by true events, of course, but no one bothers to research how true - mostly because nobody knows the movie or cares, I guess.
Performances are mostly about the attitude, so you will certainly get your fill of angry (young) men cursing and threatening each other, often coked up. This must have been something of a dream job for Ribisi who often goes for this kind of stuff these days; because being loud is better than not being heard at all.
The authors invested everything in style and noise (sure, direction is sure-handed and editing flashy) so Middle Men is shallower than it's good for two-hour movie. Much of your sympathy depends on liking Luke Wilson in the central role, because that's the closest we'll get to deepness in this orgy. If this movie has heart at all, it's thanks to him.
Middle Men is The Social Network as a mob drama, minus all the geekiness. Or Boogie Nights for the new generation, minus the soul. Rather watchable, if not particularly memorable genre movie. Good job, in a way something can be good just endlessly grinding through genre cliches.



2009 The Young Victoria
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0962736/
(so-and-so)
Who cares about the personal lives of British royalties? Still the movies just keep on coming. This one has sumptuous production values and good actors but nothing particularly memorable.
The weakness is its shallowness, not concentrating enough on Victoria's rise to throne or politics games around her or colorful power figures of the period, relying on very one-dimensional love story with her future husband. OK, they are cute together but this is not good enough reason to watch.



2009 The Open Road
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007018/
(so-and-so)
Justin Timberlake's been busy creating a film actor career as any forward-looking pop star should. The Open Road was supposed to bring his first real "starring role", but it's more like 2005's Edison: much more talented performers fill the screen whenever possible, because he's not that good himself.
I mean, he doesn't make look himself bad, but he's not that convincing either. He probably tries, and hard - he's been seen in 10 movies since 2001. But his acting is still only a little more than making faces and knowing the lines. Somebody should have invited him to In the Loop's cast, then.
The Open Road is exactly what 8 Mile was to Eminem: "dark role" which lets him sulk and not talk much while better actors are making the whole looking good.
Screenwriter and director Michael Meredith does a crucial mistake here though, which 8 Mile's director Curtis Hanson deftly oversteppes. Not letting the actor talk much is fine for hiding him being not very good - general atmosphere can add what the actor lacks. But letting the others talk and rely on the poor one's facial gestures and mimics is so much harder to fake than reciting lines! Timberlake really does a mediocre job being dark and moody here.
The actors, especially Jeff Bridges in his charming old bastard mode, do what they can to help out but the story's too slow and bland anyway. 80-odd minutes watching it feels longer.



2009 The Good Heart
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808285/
(very good)
I could only think of one recent movie to compare it with. The Good Heart is less original and humorous than 2010's The Other Man (Kevin Kline, also Paul Dano) but more poignant, compact, darker and (dare I suggest?) deeper.
It's the story of two lonely souls who expect nothing from the world and end up helping each other. Cox is dying barowner in search of a heir to this little unpleasant empire, Dano his usual screenpersona as mumbling, bumbling young man who needs a quick course on What Life Is.
To call it a character study would be, perhaps, stretching it but the movie relies very much on the two main characters and their relationship. Story has hidden or not so apparent depths which seem to reward repeated viewings (haven't tried yet), throwing light on some of the dynamics between them and adding a metaphorical layer about life and death (connected to the title).
If you miss the hidden stuff, or don't care to explore it, this play-like drama can still be enjoyable, with the two leads giving their full commitment and range to bringing this little story to life. Nobody can do broken young man quite like Dano (although he should try more diverse roles often) and Brian Cox is just magnetic as an miserable old bastard still clinging to life with all his fingers and toes. It's like a fresh take on A Christmas Carol some of us were looking for.
The Good Heart also doesn't feel too long as The Other Man.



2009 My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1233219
(dull)
I didn't get it but the other critics deem it good enough for David Lynch (executive producer) or Werner Herzog (one screenwriter, director) fans, even if it's minor work for both. I was bored halfway through; was watching it only for Shannon and Dafoe anyway.



2009 Streets of Blood
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1203523/?licb=0.49851192631933494
(so-and-so)
Bad movies can be fun, too. This gritty crime thriller where policemen just don't know the line between good and bad anymore and just shoot everybody can be laughably bad but it has something, mostly thanks to Kilmer (his charisma can add a lot to even a bad movie) and his chemistry with 50 Cent.
The movie looks cheap, especially action scenes, and the writing is horrible, but the real lowdown comes in the form of Sharon Stone as psychologist investigating the cops. I can't say what's worst about her - accent? haircut? attitude? quality of acting? facial gestures? - but it's a Razzie waiting to happen if there ever was one. Or, would have been. Since nobody saw it, she didn't get a nomination.
It's fun for a B-movie to be exploitative, too, so the story's based on New Orleans after Katrina which doesn't help the crew make the result look any better, of course. Too much TV-style shots about shoddy buildings and such.
Plenty of dirty cop and drug gang action, if the time dies rather slowly tonight.



2009 My Life in Ruins
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0865559/
(mediocre)
Nia Vardalos may have had much uncredited professional help with her runaway indie hit, 2002's My Big Fat Greek Wedding, because she's proven unable to emulate its strengths (not to mention a commericial success) later. Not that she's tried that hard.
My Life in Ruins, a romcom about jaded tour guide who rediscovers her lust for life in Greece, can be seen as a step in the right direction.
It's not particularly memorable or even that good as a whole... but it's not superawful as Vardalos's "ultimate indie experiment", 2010's I Hate Valentine's Day, and it has some of the feel-good vibes and sass the fans would expect.
As usual, the male leads (there are two) are better actors and much more charismatic than Vardalos in the lead. Richard Dreyfuss is helping a lot to give the movie some personality, intrigue and depth, he has got the best material and also the only interesting character storywise, really.
Vardalos the actress is not as wooden or toad-queen-like as in I Hate Valentine's Day, but still too bitter for her own good. Why she chose to expose her pissed-off side for the return (two films in one year!) is beyond me. Are we supposed to emphatize how hard it is to be rich and still feel the need to produce quality material? Oh me oh my!
My Life in Ruins is quite watchable but not particularly worthwhile in any way and even bad in others. Still, romcom lovers will probably find something to like.



2009 Paper Man
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437405
(mediocre)
Middle-aged writer (Daniels) can't write or sort out his marriage, so he separates from his wife, does nothing and befriends a teenage girl (Emma Stone).
A rich source for both drama and comedy, surely? It could be but the married actors cum screenwriters Kieran and Michele Mulroney making their directorial debut with this sure don't make it happen. Didn't it sound sinister by itself already? If they're not good by themselves already, two writers can mostly produce mediocre meanderings. I speak from experience, and it's true about Paper Man, too.
They get some things right from a start. Jeff Daniels is very watchable as a middle-aged loser in the center of all this. One wouldn't probably say he commands the screen here because it's a watered-down version of his best roles, and the authors stubbornly force the comical over dramatical.
The second reason makes Daniels sometimes look like an imitation of Nic Cage in Adaptation., what with all the facial tics and gestures, but he still earns his pay to the fullest.
The second strength is good cast (let's mention also Ryan Reynolds, Kieran Culkin, Lisa Kudrow, Weeds' Hunter Parrish), where the star turn belongs to Emma Stone, actually. She takes more than necessary, or perhaps expected, from a shallow character, and is probably an all-around favorite here. If the role wasn't so underdeveloped, I'd praise her more, probably.
And this is the main problem with Paper Man. It's so ambitious (big issues, trying to offer both drama and comedy, spirituality, intriguing subplot about imaginary friends) but never able to satisfy on any of the chosen paths. The characters just don't have a chance to develop and grow, which doesn't let us take the events seriously, or often characters themselves, too. Writer's confrontation with a wife near the end is the prime example.
Not bringing imaginary friends' subplot to any meaningful or poignant conclusion is probably the most saddening letdown in the variety of letdowns here. The whole thing is just a promising idea let down by uninspired execution, just like the movie itself.
For next, the Mulroneys are penning Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes sequel. As the first has a mediocre and uninspired story anyway, they probably couldn't disappoint with the part deux.



2009 Saint John of Las Vegas
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276105
(good)
It's a classic angle that has earned Ben Stiller and the other producers of his movies a lot of money - straight-faced guy amidst the ones who try to talk his ear off, or are just a little crazy. Instead of Stiller, we have Buscemi in the starring role, so the movie is completely unknown.
It's funnier than some of the highest-grossing Stiller comedies of late, and has a colorful cast which doesn't disappoint. Special mention goes out to Peter Dinklage (always a joy to watch), Sarah Silverman (playing against the type, an office babe!) and Tim Blake Nelson.
But it's mostly about Buscemi and Weeds' Romany Malco as insurance fraud investigators, driving around and offering some good ol' buddy comedy. One is tough, the other is kind of sissy; they don't get along at first, and the other cliches you could name.
It's not original or really good but a perfectly OK way to spend about 80+ minutes.