Michael Clayton

****

by Scott Cupper
10/18/07

Michael Clayton……………George Clooney
Karen Crowder……………..Tilda Swinton
Arthur Edens………………..Tom Wilkinson
Henry Clayton………………Austin Williams
Marty Bach…………………Sydney Pollack

Written and Directed by Tony Gilroy

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr 59 min


I had my doubts as to the validity of the title of Michael Clayton. How could a thriller be named after the main character? After having seen the movie, there is no better title.

Michael Clayton is a character study cleverly disguised as a thriller. It’s a rumination about family and where family fits into life when we’re all so busy running around doing our jobs. And what are our jobs anyway? Do they define us? But I promise you, it’s a thriller, and an incredibly effective one, but one where only the cops have guns, and nary one of them is fired. After having seen The Brave One which hinges all its drama on a normal citizen up and buying a gun, it’s refreshing to see a movie that doesn’t rely on guns to create drama.

Very few thrillers have room for any sense of character development. There’s plot to churn out so they better get cookin’. Michael Clayton circumvents this problem by speaking in grace notes.

When we are introduced to Michael Clayton’s (George Clooney) son, Henry (Austin Williams), we see him in an apartment. It is tight and crammed with housewares. His mom chastises him on his way out the door for not eating breakfast. The stepfather rolls his eyes begging her to let the kid be a kid. He feeds another child who is in a hi-chair. He is bald and rather plain. Henry walks outside and we see George Clooney waiting for him. In that brief scene, we learn Michael Clayton is divorced. His wife probably left him because she never saw him. So she found a guy who earned less and wasn’t as flashy, but could give her the stability to have another kid. We don’t see her again. The movie is full of these moments that infer more than tell.

So who is Michael Clayton? Michael Clayton works for a prestigious law firm as a fix-it guy. If there’s a problem, he cleans it up. As it would happen, a big problem happens when one of their litigators on a huge case, Arther Edens (Tom Wilkinson), strips down in a deposition.

And that’s all I want to say. I’ve seen plenty of movies in my time. Not as many as I’d like, but enough, and it’s hard to keep me guessing. I didn’t have a clue as to how this movie was going to resolve until it did. But it’s a fine line to travel. Not only are we following Michael Clayton and discovering things as he does, we’re also discovering who Michael Clayton is. The movie never gives us firm footing.

Certainly not in the first 15 minutes. We are thrown into this movie. Scenes of sterile New York office buildings are set against Arthur’s voice as he patters on in a mad ramble. We follow a courier in one of these buildings into a room with 50 people all doing very important things but without a clue as to who they are or what they’re doing. Michael Clayton is sent to speak with Mr. Greer who left the scene of a hit-and-run.

Here is another example of the economy of this movie. Casting director Ellen Chenoweth found people whose very appearance onscreen tells you who they are. Denis O’Hare’s performance as Mr. Greer is pitch perfect. Now watch his wife (Julie White) in the background. Again, we know everything we need to know about this man and his wife.

The leads as well are perfect. I’ve been a fan of George Clooney’s before it was cool to be a fan. This is his best work. Clooney is expert at playing calm, cool and in control. He begins this way, but through the movie, fissures begin to show. Clooney shows his commitment in a scene with Tom Wilkinson in which the only thing he has left is desperation. It is a brave performance.

The other standout is Tilda Swinton, and I will let you discover how she fits into this puzzle. An English actress, she is little known on these shores, but this performance should change that. We see her running through a speech that she will be making later. She tries different words, expressions and we see a woman who doubts herself and knows that she has no choice but to believe in herself. That contradiction is evident in every single word she utters.

Sydney Pollack, the man you get when you need the head of a law firm, also does his best work here. He’s played this character before, but there’s often a sense that he’s trying to justify why he’s there. There is no sense of that here.

The movie is written and directed by Tony Gilroy, best known as a screenwriter on the Bourne movies. This is his directorial debut. Clooney had originally wanted to direct. I believe Clooney is as skilled a director as he is an actor, but he prefers long takes and fluid camera work. The precision and exacting detail that Tony Gilroy brings might have been lost. Michael Clayton is quite a statement from a first-time director. I can’t wait for more.

The Brave One

**1/2

by Scott Cupper
10/17/07

Erica Bain…….…………….Jodie Foster
Detective Mercer……………Terrence Howard
David Kirmani………………Naveen Andrews
Detective Vitale…………….Nicky Katt
Carol………….……………..Mary Steenburgen

Directed by Neil Jordan
Screenplay by Roderick Taylor & Bruce A. Taylor and Cynthia Mort

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr 59 min


The Brave One suffers from the same problems a lot of other movies of this type do. You know, the kind of movie in which a normal, everyday, average, run-of-the-mill person murders someone. I have a problem with these kinds of movies. They think that a character can be moved from Point A (not killing) to Point B (killing) through a number of situations and that at the end, we’ll believe that this person can be a murderer. I was talking about this with a friend and he made the remark that they work like a Rube Goldberg drawing. Well, Rube Goldberg Movie it is. But I, for one, have yet to believe it.

Jodie Foster plays Erica Bain. She has a great job (radio show host) and a great fiancé, David Kirmani (Naveen Andrews). Life is great. And maybe the movie has already gone wrong. But I’ll digress later. One night, Erica and David are walking their dog through Central Park. They are harassed by some hoods who end up attacking them. It is a brutal scene. In the end, David is dead and Erica nearly so.

At this point, we get the obligatory scenes of recovery, the police questioning someone and not being sympathetic to the fact that they’re still grieving, and depression. I sound like I’m belittling this. I’m not; I’ve simply seen it before. I will say that Erica’s fight to get out of her building is excellent. The soundtrack comes alive at this point. Subtle animal noises are added to sounds like cars passing. Every footstep behind her becomes a new threat. This must be what it feels like to return from war.

The Rube Goldberg portion begins at this point. The first place Erica goes after leaving her house is to the police station to check on the progress on her case. They are no help, so she goes across the street and buys a gun off the black market. Yes, her fiancé died. Yes, she almost died. Yes, the streets are scary. Yes, the police won’t help. But if she’s been waiting that long, I think she might have waited a little longer. And why does she get the gun? Protection? Vengeance? It’s only later when she’s cornered that she uses it.

It seems that the powers that be in Hollywood don’t think that we can handle an everyday person becoming a killer. Erica can’t simply awaken after being beaten nearly to death and desire to kill someone. That’s not sympathetic. She has to be given hoops to jump through. A similar thing happened with the Michael Douglas movie Falling Down. He couldn’t simply start shooting people because he couldn’t handle the daily grind. No, they had to give him a history of violent tendencies. While this makes the movie easier to swallow, it also castrates it. What could be social commentary becomes a run-of-the-mill thriller.

There’s a scene where two men sexually threaten Erica on a train and she shoots them. I went to see the movie with my girlfriend and a female friend of ours and they really responded to this scene. They’ve been in similar situations, not as dangerous, but as violating in their own ways, and they appreciated a woman protecting herself. It’s the scene I felt was the most true. If a regular person is going to kill, it will either be an impulsive choice or come from a lifetime of injustice. I said at the beginning that giving Erica a wonderful life might have been a mistake. It seems like too far to go. Perhaps if her dog had been the only thing she had, I might have believed it more.

Jodie Foster is in this movie. She doesn’t do many. I wish she did more. While I never believed what the script gave her, I always believed her. It is a very raw performance.

Terrence Howard is as good as Detective Mercer who is investigating the murders and also gets to know Erica on a personal level. Their scenes together are the best part of the movie. He suffers the same fate as Jodie Foster and the movie again doesn’t always know what to do with the fact that he doesn’t know she’s the killer he’s looking for but she knows. But it is a joy watching two actors who are so skilled at their craft. If either of them are nominated for Oscars, I would not complain.

Nicky Katt plays Detective Mercer’s partner. His morbid humor at the crimes scenes is hilarious, but having his character there for comic relief only is a mistake. It’d be much more interesting if Terrence Howard were given those lines.

The whole movie is muddled. Is this a revenge movie or a psychological study of someone recovering from trauma? By not choosing either, The Brave One blazes a trail down the wide line of mediocrity. The director, Neil Jordan, is best known for The Crying Game. He generally goes his own way, but with this one, I felt like he was in a Tug-of-War with the studio, but not a very exciting one. Some Tug-of-Wars go back and forth. This is the kind where nothing really happens until someone’s in the mud. I’ll let you decide who.

Note: If there're a way to give this movie a positive review, Tracy did it. You can read her review here. Also, if you don't know who Rube Goldberg is, go here.

Shoot 'Em Up

***

by Scott Cupper
10/15/07

Smith…………………….Clive Owen
Hertz…………………….Paul Giamatti
Donna Quintano…………Monica Bellucci
Baby Oliver……………..Sidney Mende-Gibson
Lucas Mende-Gibson
Kaylyn Yellolees

Written & Directed by Michael Davis

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr 26 min

Sorry I've been out of commission. Been busy. Hopefully will get back into the swing and actually see a movie this week. Reviews for The Brave One and Eastern Promises will be coming shortly.

In life, there’s what I call the Rule of Three. It goes like this: you are presented with Item A. You have an initial reaction to Item A. Then you become bored with Item A because it’s there. Then you go back and look closer at Item A because it’s still there. This phenomenon is most often encountered on TV shows filmed before a live studio audience. Say an actor lands a good joke well. First comes the initial laugh. The actors wait. The laugh dies down. The actors still wait. That’s when the second wave of laughter comes in.

I feel like we’ve reached this point with certain genres: Westerns, action movies, horror movies. We’ve seen the originals; we’ve seen the rehashes. Now we’re at the reimagining. A more learned review would probably define this as post-modernism. Bah.

This can be handled in many ways. A prime example is Scream, which simply pointed out the clichés. Others choose the punk approach, boiling the genre down to its core components. Unforgiven added psychological complexity to the Western. And others simply blow the doors off of what we’ve seen before. Shoot ‘Em Up, the best-titled movie of the year, chooses this approach.

Consider Donna Quintano, the female character. Is she there for any other reason than there are always sexy women in an action movie? And she is played by whom? Monica Bellucci, the woman you get because Marilyn Monroe is dead, Sophia Loren is old, and Salma Hayek is pregnant. And if you see the movie, think about her profession and, er, special talent. Might the director be making a commentary about the relationship between these characters and the audience?

All this is serious stuff about a movie that doesn’t take itself seriously at any point. Consider that the opening fight contains a shot of spent shells bouncing off a pregnant tummy.

Before we meet the pregnant girl, however, we are presented with one of the great faces of modern cinema: Clive Owen. Yes, ladies, I understand that’s he’s fun to look at, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. Certain people have faces that tell you a story without the owners even uttering a word. Bogart comes to mind. And now we have Clive Owen.

We first see Clive (playing a character only known as Smith) in close-up, chomping on a carrot. A woman (possessor of the aforementioned pregnant tummy) walks past him clutching said tummy, screaming in pain, into the alley. Clive chomps on his carrot because life is hard. A man crashes a car, screams misogynistic jingles after the woman, and follows her down the alley. Clive, hoping that the burden of life doesn’t kill him, rises.

And so Shoot ‘Em Up begins and doesn’t stop. There’s a plot and it might actually be a commentary on America’s love of guns, but every time I tried to figure it out, people started shooting guns. The complexity might be a commentary on plot itself, but there I go again.

The movie mixes gunplay into every aspect of life. Yes, even childbirth. And of course, death. But what makes this movie so much fun is how it relishes the gunplay. Every time you think they’ve topped themselves, they top themselves. In everything: choreogrphy, violence, imgination. I’m thinking back over the movie, trying to figure out which sequence to mention, but I don’t want to ruin any. So, if this sounds like fun, go see it.

I should mention the other players. Paul Giamatti is there as the villain, Hertz, and relishes his role. It’s nice to see great actors simply having fun. I believe that most actors get into acting because they want to handle a gun in a big action movie. I think Giamatti’s earned this bit of fun, don’t you? The other performance of note is Oliver, (the baby from that tummy) played by three babies. He often gets laughs simply because he’s there. If only all comedic acting were that easy.

I had a great time at this movie. Some of the actual jokes don’t land quite where they should like most of the bullets fired in the movie, but I appreciated director Michael Davis’s imagination who animated his storyboards to show people what he wanted this movie to do. If you’re tired of overbloated Jerry Bruckheimer productions (Pirates of the Caribbean anyone?), this is the perfect antidote.

Marcel Marceau: 1923-2007

We've been cheated by mimes most of our lives, seeing street performers trapped in boxes or people attempting it without any training. All the while, we are unaware of its full potential.

Thank God for Marcel Marceau. And what a tragedy his death is.

I am blessed to have seen Marcel Marceau perform a full two hours of mime. He came to Indiana Univserity while I was going to school there. I don't remember much about it except I was never lost, nothing was unintentionally ridiculous and I was always entertained. But it was at the lecture he had given a few days before that he demonstrated the true power of mime.

I don't remember how I heard about the afternoon lecture and I don't remember if I arrived early or late, but the auditorium was full. I stood at the back with my girlfriend at the time as he was being interviewed. I remember little of this except his humor and how lithe he was, simply sitting there. After the interview, there was a Q&A that he ended by saying he would perform the story of good and evil.

This is all it was: for two minutes, a man stood on a stage, and with one hand representing evil and the other representing good, he showed their struggle and good's eventual victory. But I tell you, it was the most amazing performance I have seen in my life and I believe I will die without seeing anything to surpass it. I cried and as I cried I laughed that a man could make me cry by moving his hands.

I am grateful for that moment and am saddened by his death.

Resigned

If you see me today, you might suspect me to be depressed. Not so. You see, I haven't been involved in Bears culture very long, but I understand that this is how it goes. You are given a year of brilliance, and then it is gone. That's pretty much true for Chicago sports in general. The Bulls of the 90's? An anomaly. And so I'm resigned. I'm resigned to the fact that it's going to be a long Bears season.

Now Rex could wake up, but will he stay awake? I'm not holding out hope. I was a big supporter of Rex last year. It was his first full season. He was making first season mistakes. He showed flashes of absolute brilliance. But it's become too much. One more game. That's all I think he should get.

And if he's benched, would that save our season? The grass is always greener on Griese's side. But is it? He hasn't had the greatest track record. Looking at his stats, he's been fine his entire career. And maybe that's all we need. Someone who is fine. Someone to be a game manager.

But where's our great quarterback, huh? Don't we deserve one? I'm sorry. I'm whining. It's just that the only quarterback of note in regards to talent is Sid Luckman. Who? Yeah, I didn't know until I got here either. Mostly because he played from 1939-1950.

So here I sit. Resigned. But you want to know the cool thing about Chicago? There is hope. Always hope. We bury it. Pretend it isn't there. But in the end, heck, it's got to be our turn sometime.

Why I love Devin Hester.

I always have. Well, not always. I don't remember watching any University of Miami games and seeing him. So I should say I've loved him as long as he's been a part of the Bears.

And not just because he's an amazing return specialist. That's a given. It's how exciting he is. Do you remember Barry Sanders? I do. I loved watching him. Every time he got his hands on the ball, you never knew what was going to happen. He made things happen that shouldn't have happened. He actually kind of ruined the running game for my brother and me. We'd watch and wonder why some running back would run up the gut into a wall. Barry didn't do that.

As I began to watch football more and more, I learned about blocking assignments and routes, etc. But I began to wonder where the excitement was. Touted running back after touted running back and I'm looking and not seeing Barry. I thought maybe it was my youth. Like when you go back to your school and it looks so much smaller.

And then along came Hester. I realized that Barry hadn't been a fluke. That excitement I remembered is valid. Hester is the most exciting player since Barry Sanders.

Superbad

***
by Scott Cupper
8/30/07

Seth…………………Jonah Hill
Evan…………………Michael Cera
Fogell………………Christopher Mintz-Plasse
Officer Slater………Bill Hader
Officer Michaels…...Seth Rogen
Becca……………….Martha MacIsaac
Jules………………..Emma Stone

Directed by Greg Mottola
Written by Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr 54 min.


This is perhaps my easiest review to write. Let me ask you this: Do you want to know the mind of a high school boy? If you’ve answered no, then don’t see Superbad.

For those who are sticking around, let me give you some other reasons to see Superbad.

It’s not the premise. It’s pretty simple. Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) are two high schoolers who have thus far failed at women. Evan with Becca (Martha MacIsaac), the girl of his dreams, and Seth with every attractive girl, the only kind he’s interested in. This being their senior year, time is quickly running out, so they make it their quest to succeed. Or more accurately, Seth makes it their quest.

Fate shows it their friend when Seth gets invited to a party that night by Jules (Emma Stone) who is friendly. And attractive. This provides Evan the opportunity to invite Becca to the party. How can this fail? Then Jules drops the bomb: And, oh, can you bring the liquor?

Luckily, Seth and Evan’s faithful sidekick of a friend Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is getting a fake I.D. that very afternoon. Fogell’s that friend that you wish you hadn’t had, but when you had so few friends to begin with, can you really turn one down? Particularly one who is providing you the key to your dreams? Until Fogell proudly hands over his fake I.D. with his chosen alias: McLovin’. Just McLovin’. Oh what are these boys to do?

A lot actually including getting punched, shooting guns, getting run over, stopping crime, cops, singing, running all in the quest for procuring alcohol. Basically, general craziness prevails for this section of the movie. I got the impression that when Seth Rogen (who co-wrote and plays a cop) and Evan Goldberg (just a writer, thank you) wrote this when they were 13, they realized they were going to have a 45-minute movie if they kept it up at this rate. So they put in a whole bunch of obstacles. A few are genuinely funny, some are amusing, and the rest are simply plot.

The biggest problem with this stretch is that Seth and Evan are separated at times. I don’t want to take anything from Christopher’s performance as Fogell. He has a unique energy that is a wonder in its own way. It’s just that Michael Cera and Jonah Hill are so, well, funny together that it’s lunacy that the movie keeps them apart at all. I’m trying to find words to describe how it is that they work so well together and I’m having a difficult time. Yes, Cera’s “Aw shucks” perverseness and Hill’s desperation complement one another well. But what it boils down to is that you believe their friendship. The conversation flows so naturally between them that you feel like a voyeur.

When’s he going to mention how raunchy it is? Well, yes it is, but that’s dismissive. The first 20 minutes is long, extended scenes that rely solely on dialogue. We follow Seth and Evan as they begin their day and all they do is talk. Sure, the movie is not above using a curse word so much that that’s the joke, but it’s also interested in how these words are used. If you’ve seen a Tarantino movie, he does the same thing. And the jokes are not all simple either. When Seth makes an analogy comparing his sex life and Orson Welles’s career, that’s a joke that takes some smarts to make the some smarts to get.

I said that Superbad gets a lot right about high school boys. For me, the biggest things that are how much they think about sex (constantly) and how much sex they actually have. I’ll leave that for you to discover.

Storms

If you're not in the midwest, you've probably read about our string of severe storms. If you're in the midwest, you've undoubtedly experienced them. And string is right. We've got an assembly line stretching from Michigan to Northwest Texas. Apparently we're right on the edge of a bubble of hot air. And neither is moving.

It's been crazy. Severe thunderstorms every day. And night. Yesterday was the worst. Tornado warnings for all of Chicago. 310,000 people without power. My workplace lost power so we went home early. 2,400 trees damaged in some way and not a small number down. Traffic lights down. Over 2 inches of water in an hour. Viaducts flooded. The Edens (essentially I-94 after it diverges from I-90 north of the city) was closed because it was flooded. Yes, flooded. Lake Shore Drive was gathering water.

But it was the wind that was the most amazing. Gusts of 74 m.p.h. That's the windspeed at which a Tropical Storm is upgraded to a Hurricane. I've been up most nights at some point because I have two huge trees at either of my bedroom windows and I have never seen trees blowing so hard. So I get up and move to my living room in case one of those trees should decide it's tired and needs to rest in my bed. Watched an episode of the The West Wing last night. President Bartlet had to make a tough decision about the Defense Minister (I think) of Qumar. Riveting stuff at 1 a.m.

One more day. Oh yes, that's right. We could get another severe storm today. But the weekend promises nice weather.

The Bourne Ultimatum

***

August 10, 2007
By Scott Cupper

Jason Bourne…………….Matt Damon
Pam Landy………………Joan Allen
Noah Vosen……………...David Strathairn
Simon Ross………………Paddy Considine
Nicky Parsons……………Julia Stiles
Ezra Kramer……………...Scott Glenn
Desh……………………...Joey Ansah
Dr. Albert Hirsch…………Albert Finney

Directed by Paul Greengrass
Written by Tony Gilroy, Scott Z. Burns, and George Nolfi
Based on the novel by Robert Ludlum


Jason Bourne is awesome. Faster than a computer. More powerful than crashing cars. Able to size up any situation in a single glance. It’s Jason Bourne!

Therein lies the problem of The Bourne Ultimatum. Now don’t get me wrong. I love to watch Jason Bourne being awesome. And Matt Damon is awesome at making Bourne…awesome. But by simply being awesome, the series has lost something along the way. In the first Bourne outing, The Bourne Identity, Jason Bourne was bewildered by what he could do and we were in awe. We were discovering together. Lately, though, he’s all about revenge.

It’s a natural progression, I understand this. At the end of Identity, he was content with what he knew about himself and was trying to live happily ever after on a secluded island with his girlfriend. But the CIA wasn’t happy, so they killed his girlfriend. Now, that would mess me up somethin’ awful. The funny thing, though, is that we no longer really care about his plight. We’re more interested in fights and big things go boom.

Jason Bourne has become more machine than man, going about his business as if he was programmed to do so. And forget about anything else. Sex seems to be a thing of the past. The movie wants us to believe that he loved his girlfriend, but when Bourne learns that he was in at least one other relationship, he reacts as if he’s been told he once owned a vacuum cleaner.

Ultimatum understands that this has happened, so it gives us something else to care about while Bourne is traveling from clue to clue. Joan Allen returns as Pam Landy, but she is no longer heading up the Bourne case. That job has gone to Noah Vosen (David Strathairn). And like any superiors must, they butt heads. Pam is trying to understand Bourne. Noah is trying to eliminate him. These are two fine actors and their interplay is a highlight of the movie. If Jason Bourne’s pursuit wasn’t so loud, this would feel like the main plot of the movie.

Ultimatum gets the ball rolling with a newspaper article that’s coming out. Reporter Simon Ross (Paddy Considine) is about to break the story on Treadstone and Blackbriar. I was a little hazy on this, but I think Treadstone became Blackbriar. Our hero was the first of the new program. That Jason Bourne, he’s such a good sport. So, anyway, Jason gets wind of this article and meets with the reporter.

The meeting was one of the movie’s best action sequences. Bourne, being the cunning fox he is, knows that this reporter is most likely being followed. So he slips him a cell phone and tells the reporter how to avoid all the security. It a skillfully crafted sequence that plays the right notes of Bourne’s knowledge verses the reporter’s fear.

I’m not in love with Paul Greengrass’s direction like everyone else is. Yes, his handheld style is kinetic, but it sacrifices a lot. It was very effective in Bloody Sunday. Here, however, the action scenes are a great deal more confusing than they need to be and at some point it’s even hard to tell exactly what’s going on. There’s no need for it. The pleasure of seeing this kind of movie is what the actors are doing. We want to see cool fights.

It probably sounds like I didn’t enjoy the movie. I did. It’s fine. It’s effective. It’s a good time. If you liked The Bourne Supremacy, you’ll like this one. It’s just when something starts with such promise, it’s hard to see it settle for the common denominator. At least it goes for the jugular.

Ratatouille

****

Remy…….…………….Patton Oswalt
Linguini……………….Lou Romano
Chef Skinner…………..Ian Holm
Colette…………………Jeneane Garofalo
Django…………………Brian Dennehy
Gusteau………………..Brad Garrett
Anton Ego……………..Peter O’Toole

Directed by Brad Bird
Screenplay by Brad Bird
Story by Brad Bird, Jim Capobianco, and Jan Pinkava with additional material by Emily Cook and Kathy Greenberg


Ratatouille is one of the most effortless movies I have seen. It goes about its business likes it has no desire to aspire to anything other than entertaining you. It’s only afterward that you realize how much the movie was saying, which makes its ease all the more remarkable.

It begins as the story of Remy (voiced by Patton Oswalt), a rat who has an exceptional sense of smell and takes great delight in food. This passion gets him in trouble with the humans where the pack is living and they have to leave.

Remy ends up in Paris. The people there share his passion for food, but feel generally the same about rats. He can’t help himself, however, and ends up in a restaurant where he saves a hapless garbage boy named Linguini from ruining the soup.

And from there, the movie just goes, introducing one wonderful character after another: the head chef Skinner (Ian Holm), the female chef Colette (Jeneane Garofalo), the critic Anton Ego (Peter O’Toole), and many more, all of whom have their moments whether they be singular or shared with many. The plot is a delight as it twists and turns and wends its way always landing where it should but never overstaying its welcome.

You can’t talk about a Pixar film without talking about the animation. There are many action set pieces in the movie. One of my favorites is after Linguini decides that Remy is going to help him cook. Neither knows how this is going to work and their first attempt is hilarious. In the end, there may be a few too many set pieces and they may go on too long, but each one is so ingenious that I can’t fault the movie for it.

Linguini (Lou Romano) may be my favorite creation by Pixar yet. He is a perfect blend of animation and voicework. He’s still not sure how to use his legs and arms and Lou Romano makes him talk as if he’s never said the right thing in his life. I’ve met people who would talk and move like this if they were animated.

The movie gets it right in even the smaller moments. When Remy talks about food, the visuals and sound design they use creates one of the best representations I’ve seen on film of how an artist views the world.

And I’m not a traveler, but Pixar movies are the ones that make me want to go places. Finding Nemo made me want to visit Sydney, Australia and now I want to go to Paris.

I’ve become a big fan of director Brad Bird (The Iron Giant and The Incredibles). He has his own stories that he tells in his way, eschewing standard formulas. In any other Pixar movie, the reuniting of characters who have been separated is usually the point. Mr. Bird separates and reunites two characters but he’s interested in something else: What if the issues they had before haven’t gone away? It’s one of the many ways that this movie has more on its mind.

Much has been made about America’s view of animation as child’s fare. The issue is larger than whether we can accept animation for adults. That too is limiting. Animators don’t have to worry about the real world. They have more tools at their disposal than any live action director does and Brad Bird is utilizing all of them. Ratatouille evokes smell and taste better than any live action movie I’ve seen. It is what animation is capable of.

Rescue Dawn

****

Dieter Dengler……………………….Christian Bale
Steve Zahn………………..………….Duane
Jeremy Davies………………………..Gene
Toby Huss…………………………....Spook
Teerawat ‘Ka Ge’ Mulvilai ………….Little Hitler

Written and Directed by Werner Herzog

Rated PG-13
Runtime: 2 hrs. 6 min.


Few of us know what true survival is. We talk about surviving different tribulations in our lives, but it’s hyperbole. Our life may have changed drastically, but we were never in any danger of losing our lives. I had this thought when I was watching Rescue Dawn. It is about men who know nothing but survival.

The movie is based on the true story of Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale). For reasons better left to Christian Bale’s monologue to detail, Dieter came to the United States from Germany to fly. We first meet him in the bowels of an aircraft carrier being briefed on a top secret mission to bomb targets in Laos before the Vietnam War has begun.

I want to take a moment to talk about Christian Bale’s performance. In many movies, we learn who a character is throughout the movie. Not so here. In these opening scenes, Bale makes Dieter charming, cocky, and forthright in a way so as to be slightly awkward. These are traits that are consistent throughout the movie. We therefore know him immediately and so we join him on this journey. It is Bale’s best performance that I have seen.

Dieter is shot down during the mission and gets captured by the Viet Cong and eventually arrives at a camp where he joins 5 men who have already been imprisoned for two years. Immediately, his only thought is escape, and his enthusiasm eventually inspires the other men to try.

The relationships that these men develop in the camp are the heart of the movie. They become a surrogate family: they bicker, they support each other, they laugh. It was the laughter that amazed me. Not that it happened. I believe you would have to laugh. It was that the movie was able to make the laughter so genuine. Usually, the audience laughs at characters onscreen. Here, it is the characters who laugh and we are allowed to laugh with them.

I’ve already mentioned Christian Bale, but Steve Zahn also gives a memorable performance as another fighter pilot, Duane. What I remember are Steve Zahn’s eyes. Duane’s desire to be as strong as Dieter is all right there as is the toll the camp has taken on him. It is an incredibly vulnerable performance.

It is after the escape that the jungle itself becomes a character in the movie. I had heard a lot about the men fighting their way through the underbrush, but I wondered how bad it could be. It is one of the most memorable images of the movie. It is a testament not only to Herzog’s devotion to filming on location, but also to the devotion of the actors.

In another director’s hands, this could have been an oppressive movie with graphic torture scenes and amped up music and the prisoners screaming at each other. But it is not. It is gentle, even subdued. Shocking things happen, but they are not emphasized. Herzog trusts this story and his actors, and in the end, us.

Are You Sure You're Ready for Your Closeup?

"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."

When Norma Desmond utters this famous line in Sunset Boulevard, it's understood that this imaginary closeup is in a movie about her and this is the moment where we are to experience what she is experiencing. This is what closeups are meant to do. They reinforce a subjective moment. But I've noticed that closeups are being used incorrectly. Directors are unwittingly creating objective moments when they're striving for the exact opposite.

My father, of all people, noticed this trend first. I had seen the The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and been unimpressed when everyone else was going ga-ga over it. When it came to a second-run theater, I figured I'd give it another shot and asked my dad if he wanted to go. When we were walking out of the theater, I asked him what he thought. All he mentioned was the amount of closeups of Frodo and his big eyes. I had wanted a little more of an answer so I kind of dismissed it at the time. It was only when I was watching The Two Towers and felt as apathetic as I had to the first film that I began searching for words to describe my experience. Claustrophobia came to mind and I recalled my dad's words. When I began looking for closeups, I realized my dad's answer was the more I had wanted 'cause there's a ton of them. Rather than creating the expansive feeling that these movies deserve, I felt like I in Bilbo's house in Bag End.

A slightly different problem is that action movies are being filmed in what might be called a cinema verite style. Paul Greengrass's Bourne Supremacy is an example of this. Cameras are handheld and are close to the subject creating an entire movie of closeups. When I saw the movie in the theater, several people I was with had to leave because they were nauseous. Much of Batman Begins, as great a movie as it is, is filmed in the same way. And yet at one point in that movie, it is the perfect choice.

The first time we "see" Batman being Batman is in the warehouse. An exchange of goods between criminals is being made. One by one, Batman is taking out hoods. Growing paranoia sets in among them because they don't know what's going on. Finally, the big showdown comes. This is one of the best scenes of the movie. Batman comes from above and sets down among a number of men, promptly dispatching all of them. At no point do we ever see him completely. It's a hand here, a foot there, a bit of cape. Sometimes we only see a body fall.

Now why does this scene work so well when all of the other fight scenes seem so confusing? It is because in that scene, we are the hoods and not Batman. We are seeing things through their eyes, and to them, it is confusing. We intellectually know that they're being attacked by Batman, but from the moment we step into the warehouse, the movie is from the point of view of the hoods. In all of the other fight scenes, we are Batman.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I got into a fight, I don't think I would have any idea what would be going on. It would be a flurry of fists, pain, and maybe a little joy if actually managed to land a punch. But to fight effectively, as Batman does, you need to counter the person you're fighting. You need to know what is going on in the fight. But all of Batman's fight scenes are filmed in such a way that we can't know what is going on. We are left to guess. And if we are guessing, we are not Batman, and if we are not Batman, then the movie has failed.

The same can be said of Bourne Supremacy. I think it is a very good movie, and perhaps could have been better than Bourne Identity, but Identity understood that Jason Bourne knows how to fight, and so we should have that experience as well. But Supremacy's fight scenes are a jumbled mess. Again, we have been separated from the character we are meant to be with. We are not involved in the fight. We are watching it.

Asian cinema, which has been dealing with intricate fight choreography a bit more than its Western counterpart, seems to understand this. Perhaps it only came from a desire to show the choreogrpahy, but the lesson is still there and the Wachowski brothers certainly learned it. Can you imagine The Matrix without seeing Neo cartwheeling through the air?

The failure of The Lord of the Rings is slightly different. While it's fight scenes have the same problem, it's the true closeups that are its biggest flaw. Peter Jackson doesn't understand how we feel about these characters. The books are large and sweeping and the movie should feel the same. The characters are archetypes, the quest has ramifications on the world. This is not a John Cassevetes movie. But Peter Jackson seems to think he can make the movie something it is not.

Closeups are a trait of his. They show up in King Kong but here they work because he sees this movie as a relationship between a woman and a large ape. Though the movie is a grand adventure, every time it focuses on their faces, we are a part of this relationship.

It's disheartening to see this coming from such fine directors who make so many other great choices. I haven't seen United 93 but I hope that Paul Greengrass used this style for that movie as he did so effectively with Bloody Sunday. I want to be with those people on that plane.

In the end, these directors have two choices. They can either follow directors as varied as Alfred Hitchcock, Martin Scorsese and Paul Thomas Anderson and find stories that fit their styles. Or, they can follow Steven Soderbergh and Gus Van Sant and find styles that fit the stories.

So what's it going to be, guys?

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

***1/2

Harry Potter……………………….Daniel Radcliffe
Dolores Umbridge………………....Imelda Staunton
Sirius Black……………………….Gary Oldman
Severus Snape……………………..Alan Rickman
Professor Dumbledore…………….Michael Gambon
Hermione Granger…………………Emma Watson
Ron Weasely………………………Rupert Grint
Voldemort…………………………Ralph Fiennes

Directed by David Yates
Screenplay by Michael Goldenberg
Based on the novel by J. K. Rowling

Rated PG-13
Runtime: 2 hrs. 18 min.


There’s been a lot made of the magic being gone. I have to admit: for a time, I was wondering whether it was.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (movie #5 of 7) doesn’t begin as effortlessly as the others have. There are scenes that don’t pop as much as they have in the previous movies. The lone scene with Harry’s aunt and uncle was uncomfortable, like they tried to cram into a 2-minute scene all of the humor the other movies found in Harry’s home life and it burst.

But at some point, and I can’t say when it happened, the movie took off. I felt the same way I do when I read the books: breathless excitement as each scene unfolds wondering what’s going to happen next.

The movie opens well with a genuinely frightening scene when Harry and his step-brother Dudley are attacked by Dementors. In order to save himself and Dudley, Harry has to use magic.

For this, Harry is expelled from Hogwarts. He is eventually allowed to return, but Hogwarts is not the haven it once was. The newspapers and many classmates are accusing him of lying about Voldemort’s return (Harry fought Voldemort at the end of the previous film). There’s a new Professor of the Dark Arts, Dolores Umbridge, who is also a member of the Ministry of Magic, and who does not take kindly to being questioned. Professor Dumbledore seems oddly absent. And Harry is having recurring nightmares.

There are a few bright spots for Harry. He begins leading a secret class teaching defense against the dark arts because Miss Umbridge is not teaching them anything practical. And then there’s his first kiss.

There are so many intangibles with this outing that I don’t know where to place either the little blame or the considerable credit. There’s a new writer and it’s the longest of the Potter books, but it is new director David Yates who has received the brunt of the attacks. Several critics have said that he hasn’t brought anything new to the series. Really, I’m not sure anyone up to this point has added their stamp except Alfonso Cuaron with the edge he brought to Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Yates wisely builds on this as Mike Newell did in the previous installment. But Yates brings a delicacy to this film that has been absent before. This movie has time for character and there are many intimate scenes that depend on acting and not effects. All the actors have improved, particularly Daniel Radcliffe. When he asks Dumbledore why he’s angry all the time, it’s heartbreaking. His scenes with his godfather Sirius (Gary Oldman) are excellent. The bond between them is very real.

Imelda Staunton has been added to the cast and is wonderful as Dolores Umbridge. Everything about her acting, costumes, and set decoration (love the cat plates) undercut her sadism, yet it makes her that much more terrifying.

But please, let’s give it up for Alan Rickman who works his own special type of magic on screen. He has a scene in which he utters only two words, both of which elicited laughs from the audience.

Finally, for all those who are complaining that the wonderment is gone, of course it is. J. K. Rowling’s brilliance was to begin this story as an objective experience, but the more we grow with Harry, the more subjective the story becomes. We have to experience things as Harry is. I suggest you stop complaining and come along for the ride. You might miss some magic you weren’t expecting.

Vent

I was going to blog about my first Cubs game but why waste your time with that when the CTA (Chicago Transit Authority for those who are ignorant of the hate) has provided me with such grand...fodder.

The CTA and I, we're good friends the way that ex-lovers are: You ride 'em 'cause it's convenient, but you'd really rather have another. Ride, that is.

We've come to terms. I catch her an hour before I have to be at work. Usually I'll arrive right on time. Sometimes early. Sometimes 5 minutes late. That's fine. She's a public transportation system. I can't expect her to pay attention to only my needs. But today? Today, she must have forgotten those terms.

Things started out well enough. I wanted to be at work a half-hour early, but I actually only left the house 15 minutes early. I resigned myself to being 15 minutes early. Fine. However, when I got to the train platform, lo and behold, a train pulled up. I'm going to be a half-hour early! Aw, shucks, CTA. You didn't have to.

Things are going smoothly: I'm listening to my friend Tyler's podcast, Battleship Pretension; I've got a Decemberists concert (the reason I'm leaving early) to look forward to; the sun is shining; the stops are flying by. Nice.

Then we hit the Jarvis stop. And stay. For a while. Longer. Longest. How long are we going to be here? Eventually we move. I check my watch. Down to 15 minutes early.

Howard stop. As we pull up, I look for a Yellow Line train to Skokie, my next transfer. None waiting. Still 15 minutes early. And I've got a little cushion.

But not enough cushion. This is when things go haywire. I'm waiting, watching train after train (red, purple) pass with nary a yellow in the mix. People are starting to complain. CTA attendants are stopped and asked what's going on. One tells us to go to the other tracks, the southbound tracks, where we see two yellows waiting. A little unusual since we (there's a number of us now) want to go north, but not unheard of on the CTA. And so we obediently go down one stairwell and come up the other to find one of the yellows leaving. Never fear; another awaits. Down there. We wait for it to come up a bit and meet us as it usually would on the northbound side. But there's nothing usual about today. It sits, and sits. We go to meet it. It moves. We wait to see where it will stop. It doesn't.

I'm a calm person. But at this point, I'm ready to talk to someone. I'm now going to be on time if a train leaves RIGHT NOW. Across the way on the northbound side, the correct side, a yellow line has snuck past us and is boarding. WHAT? People are pointing fingers, asking questions of one another; two CTA workers (one of whom was the one who told us to come to this side) are doing the same thing; and a yellow pulls up dropping people off from Skokie, that now fabled place where I once did travel with great convenience.

We're at the breaking point. I've got a pitchfork in my hand, the man beside me is trying ineffectually to light his torch with a butane lighter, when a voice from on high sounds: "This train to Skokie leaving right out from here."

I board. I check my watch. It's going to be close. Ah, well. Tyler and David are discussing spaghetti on a movie podcast and things are looking eerily normal. I arrive at Skokie and set my feet on the platform as one who has been lost at sea and waded ashore. I begin to kneel to kiss the ground but someone bumps my butt with their bag so I think better of it.

I am on the last leg of my journey. I need a bus right now to be on time. I look. No bus. OK, maybe I have a minute. 5 minutes later, one arrives. I'm going to be 5 minutes late. And just to thumb her nose at me, the CTA has provided me a driver who can't make the turn without backing up: BEEP, BEEP, BEEP.

I did arrive 5 minutes late at 9:05. I began my odyssey at 7:45. You do the math.

Celebrating the 4th

The 4th of July has quickly become one of my favorite holidays. Growing up, the grilling holidays (4th of July, Memorial Day, Labor Day) were not big holidays for my family. We went to some barbecues. I think my great uncle's huge barbecue bash was one of these holidays. But there were many that just passed as nothing more than a day off. I didn't think much of it until I got older and realized there were certain friends I couldn't call on these days because they would be at a barbecue.

Moving to Chicago, I've met some new friends who grew up in these families have decided to carry on the tradition of their parents'. Through them, I've learned why people love celebrating these holidays. It's a great time to get together with people whom you may not have seen since the last grilling holiday and drink copious amounts of beer (but spread throughout the day so no one need get trashed unless one so desires) and play games that you wouldn't consider playing otherwise like volleyball or cornholing (the less vulgar term would be bags).

But of these holidays, Chicago doesn't celebrate any of them like the 4th. And I'm not sure any city celebrates the 4th like Chicago does.

I was only visiting Chicago with thoughts of moving here when I first experienced it. And the amazing thing about it was I wasn't even a participant. That's the thing: Independence Day in Chicago will find you. You want to escape, you leave the city.

I was staying with my friend Carol. It was about 104 degrees outside and even warmer inside. She didn't have any plans and therefore I didn't either, so we figured we'd watch a movie. Since neither of us had seen The Piano, we decided that Independence Day would be the perfect day for viewing it. So there we were, sitting on the floor (it was too hot to sit on the couch), sweating from the exertion of simple respiration, watching The Piano. We began the movie around 4. About 5, the fireworks started.

Now when I went home after my visit, I swore to a friend that the official, city-sponsored fireworks lasted from 5 - 11 p.m. She didn't believe me and was right to not. However, she had not been there. The city fireworks actually happen on the 3rd. I guess the entire city decides to pick up the slack.

Seriously, if you have PTSD, don't come to Chicago. This 4th I went to a beach in Rogers Park, the northern most neighborhood of the city. Right north of it is Evanston whose fireworks we decided we'd catch from there. But who needs fireworks from miles away when you can be in the midst of them?

I looked up Illinois's fireworks laws yesterday. You can play with sparklers and and what not. But these are illegal: Firecrackers, torpedoes, skyrockets, roman candles, and bombs. I saw some sparklers, but I think I was more distracted by the firecrackers, torpedoes, skyrockets, roman candles and bombs. Where were the police? Everywhere, but I think it's pretty hard to crack down when the entire city is exploding.

I went to look for a fountain and felt like I was in a war zone. There were explosions all around us. Far to the north and far to the south. The only reason they weren't to the east is that there's a big lake there. Even then, someone decided to fire skyrockets at a lower angle toward the water.

And we're not talking just rinky-dink skyrockets that make more noise than they do anything else. At least two groups of people had spent God knows how much money on professional grade fireworks. The kind that explode into a color and then become mini sparklers. Ones with monstrous diameters. And they were only firing them 50 yards away. It was a little scary considering that some of the color didn't die before they hit the ground.

We even had a hard time telling when the Evanston fireworks began because someone else further up the coast had decided to buy professional fireworks as well. But Evanston's are beautiful and perhaps the best fireworks I've seen.

While on the beach, in between singing any patriotic songs we could think of, I got to talking with my friend Rick about Independence Day. He said it was a holiday that really made him look back over the year, much more than New Year's. I'd have to say I agree. New Year's carries with it pressure to end the year with a bang. Independence Day? You've got all summer, why not just enjoy what you've got right now.

Transformers

***1/2

I was in the movie theater waiting for Transformers to begin when a friend asked me, “So which Transformers did you have?”

“You know, I can’t really remember.”

My friend almost did a double take. “Where do you come from?”

I remember liking The Transformers (and their lesser-known counterparts, Go-Bots), but I can’t really remember them. I was much more into He-Man and Silverhawks and Star Wars.

All that to say, I watched the movie as a novice. I was in the minority. I couldn’t remember such excitement since Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was released. Maybe The Matrix: Reloaded. Both of those died pretty quickly. This did not. This excitement grew throughout the entire movie. As did mine.

Plot? OK. If I must. A U. S. helicopter that won’t identify itself lands at a US Air Force base somewhere in the deserts of the Middle East. Before you know it, this simple helicopter transforms into a three-story robot that destroys the base…and is looking for something. What? The Allspark. It fell to Earth millennia ago and contains a great power that if harnessed can blah blah blah…. Long and short: good guys (Autobots) and bad guys (Decepticons) both want it and so came to Earth to get it.

Meanwhile, our hero, Sam Witwicky (played by perhaps the next great actor Shia Labeouf) is dealing with high school: he can’t get the girl, the jocks don’t like him, he has friends that embarrass him in front of both, and his parents are ridiculous. But things may be looking up. In a shady car dealership run by Bernie Mac (has this guy ever been unfunny?), he happens upon an old Camaro.

Yes, it is a Transformer. Bumblebee, an Autobot (i.e. good guy, remember?). And so the fun begins. As a summer blockbuster, this is a great movie. As Ebert is found of saying, stuff blows up real good. There is plenty of humor. And the actors fill in what the script has sketched so we care about the characters. Of particular note are Kevin Dunn and Julie White who play Sam’s parents. They are a married couple the moment they share the screen and Ms. White is so funny she almost runs away with a movie in which giant robots fight each other. Oh, yeah. The Transformers. Judging by the cheers of the audience, they were not done a disservice.

I was entertained from beginning to end. Sure, in looking back today, there are bits and characters that didn’t really need to be there, but I didn’t care at the time. And a movie is about what happens to you when you are watching it.

I have hope for Michael Bay. His last two movies (this and The Island) were made without producer Jerry Bruckheimer and have had room for things other than explosions. He will never make a small, character-driven film, but a lot of other people will. He’s going to stick to what he does, and something may actually come of it.

I have seen it, and it is good

Isn't that beautiful? Definitely has the Paul Thomas Anderson touch. Also some Terrence Malick.

I'm going to go watch it again.

This is killing me!

IMDb has a link to the preview for There Will Be Blood on YouTube and I can't watch it because my work is smart enough to block it!

Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

OK. I am going to calm down...

(breathe)

Hello. Allow me to explain: There Will Be Blood is the new Paul Thomas Anderson movie. He is my favorite director. The move stars Daniel Day-Lewis who is one of the greatest actors who has ever lived. You probably saw him in Gangs of New York. He was Bill the Butcher. He has also done amazing work in My Left Foot and The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

Did you get that? They are working together. My excitement at finding out this was going to happen, my words to explain it, they are too vulgar to be written here. In my mind, this is a cosmic event.

AND I HAVE TO WAIT SEVEN HOURS TO BE ABLE TO CATCH A GLIMPSE!!!

But heark, an angel tells me that there is an individual in the office who is able to view YouTube. There is hope.

Two things that made me happy

As I was running this morning, I passed a car that was stopped at a traffic light blaring music. I caught a bit and thought, "Did I really hear that?" So I listened closely. "Doo-doo-doo-doo, Doo-doo, Doo-doo. Can't touch this."

The other thing that made me happy was this preview:

The Spoilers (SOPRANOS!)

Crap. I mean The Sopranos (SPOILERS!). You have to admit, those words have practically become synonymous the last few days. Still, don't want to spoil that for anyone who hasn't seen it. So don't read on.

You know what's so damn funny about all of this? There's nothing to spoil. The show simply ended with a blackout. But we all have to be so quiet which is going to make those who want to play catch-up on DVD even more confounded.

Everyone's got an opinion about the finale. And I'm going to weigh in with mine.

It was brilliant. Yep, I'm (apparently) in the minority. It is exactly in line with everything that has come before.

The Sopranos has never really been a fluid show. Things begin and end abruptly. Even it's editing is sometimes cruel. Like the movie Punch-Drunk Love, it seems to want to assault you. To make you feel like these characters do.

It also follows along with The Sopranos refusing to resort to cliffhangers (the refuge of hacks). Sure, a season would end with plots begun, but it never left us hanging about the fate of a character. Each season was a springboard to the next. So it's only fitting that the show should end that way. Plots were set up (an indictment, AJ's and Meadow's new careers, Paulie new business, etc.). Most people seem to believe that Tony was whacked in the diner. I'm not so sure. It left us exactly in the middle of the things the show was about: family and the mob.

Me, I like to think that nothing happened. Tony goes on. He's indicted. AJ never becomes part of the mob. Carmela continues in her way as does Meadow. Sil...Sil probably passes. And I will miss him.

And everyone stop whining about a movie. This was not a set-up to a movie. David Chase is not that cheap. This was the end of a series. If you'll recall, it was not Chase's idea to have The Sopranos go on as long as it did. He wanted out earlier. HBO asked that he keep the show going. He's interested in telling stories. This is the end of the story.

In the end, what an amazing series. Perhaps one of the greatest character studies. Tony, I will miss you.