What happens when the lights go out. - ... some brief musings about films (both recent and not-so-recent).

The Hammer (viewed at home on August 02, 2009)

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:43:18 -0800

Many many years ago, my friend and I went to see Welcome Home, Roxy Carmichael. We knew nothing about this movie other than it starred Winona Ryder (my favorite at the time) and Jeff Daniels (my friend's favorite). To be honest, we weren't expecting much: the previews we had seen seemed kind of stupid, no one we knew had seen this film, and the only reason we were going to go see this movie was because we were both bored out of our minds that afternoon. So, it was perhaps because we were expecting so little that we ended up enjoying the film so much.

I can barely remember now what the story is about -- something about an absent mother and a teen girl who feels lost -- and I've been tempted to check it out on DVD but I don't dare. I'm afraid that I'll end up hating the movie and it will ruin the nice memory I have of that lazy afternoon in Berkeley.

I mention all this because Adam Carolla's The Hammer fits into this category. I remember a the preview being mildly amusing but the movie came and went in the theaters so quickly, I barely remember it existing at all. One day, when I logged into my netflix account, The Hammer popped up as a recommendation. I figured, what the heck, might as well give it a try. This is not a great film but it is a thoroughly enjoyable one. I've never cared for Carolla -- I thought his shtick on "The Man Show" as well as on "Loveline" were tiresome at best. His morning radio show wasn't so bad but definitely nothing I would go out of my way to listen to.

Perhaps because the film is scripted, it seemed to really contain Carolla in such a way that it was possible to appreciate his humor without being completely annoyed by his whiney voice or his man-child antics. As horribly cliche as this might sound, The Hammer had a really good heart -- it was a film that could sometimes throw really mean jokes but they never got overly obnoxious (unlike Carolla's radio stuff).

The basic premise is simple: Carolla is an unemployed construction worker who moonlights as a boxing instructor for people who want to learn basic self-defense or just get a nice aerobic workout. A trainer looking for someone to take to the Olympic tryouts spots him and offers him a chance. Hilarity and mischief ensue. The film is about as low-budget as you can get. The boxers take a road trip to Phoenix (why they wouldn't fly is beyond my understanding). The film was made entirely in Los Angeles (not a big deal) but they can't even shoot it so that it actually feels they left LA (during the Phoenix trip).

Despite all that (or maybe because of it), The Hammer was still an amazingly fun way to kill 90 minutes.

Funny People (viewed at Pacific Place on July 31, 2009)

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:12:27 -0800

As I noted in my review of I Love You Man, I have a love-hate relationship with Apatow. While I thought 40 Year-Old Virgin was an incredibly funny and fresh comedy, his shtick quickly grew stale. Really, how many times can you retreat the same old ground: man-child suffering from arrested development. After a certain point, you just want to yell out, "come on, dude, grow up." What's especially frustrating is that Apatow's short-lived television series Freaks and Geeks was amazing. It seems that those directionless high-school students that Apatow created just never managed to grow up.

Funny People, then, might be considered Apatow's first real attempt at a grown-up comedy. Adam Sandler plays a thinly-veiled version of himself, George Simmons. A middle-aged comedian who's had a run of successful films, Simmons is faced with a terminal disease. Much to no one's surprise, this results in his reflecting back on his life and realizing that all the success that he's had doesn't amount to much. At this point, there's nothing new here in the film's overall story line and structure. What really makes this first part of the film worthwhile are the three supporting characters, three young comics trying to make it in Hollywood. The energy of these struggling three makes for an interesting contrast to Simmons' very established yet lonely life. If the film had stayed on course and focused on this, I think Funny People would have been a far more worthwhile film. As it is, the film veers away from this story and dramatically changes gears.

In the second half of the film, Simmons seeks redemption by looking up an old girlfriend -- "the one who got away" when he chose his career over love. At this point, then, the film turns into a drab romance. While Eric Bana's short cameo is entertaining enough, it hardly makes up for the clumsy storyline. There's something about American films that no matter what the subject matter, there has to be a romantic element, some kind of relationship angle. If you're lucky, the romance is fairly innocuous but, more often than not, it tends to really diminish the film. In this case, it really diminishes the film.

(500) Days of Summer (Viewed at Pacific Place on June 17, 2009)

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:32:49 -0800

The J and I saw this on the same night that we saw AWAY WE GO. Of course, if you're reading this blog for the first time right now, you would realize it by going to the very next entry -- an entry that was put up months ago. I don't know what the hell happened during the summer, but the last three months just whizzed by and I've got a backlog of movies to get through. To help get through this pile, I've decided that I'm only going to review films I've seen for the first time. I spend a lot of time re-watching older films (some for pleasure, some for class). If I were to comment on those, I'd have to live in front of my computer.

Anyways, so I'm going to stop blathering about the blog and start doing some actual blogging.

I've always been a sucker for romantic comedies. Most of the time, no matter how bad they may be (and boy, they can be really bad at times), I'll usually drag myself to see them. Rom-Coms are like candy -- not nutritious but very comforting in a sweet and sickly sort of way. At their worst, rom-coms are like generic hard candy. They just leave a heavy coating in your mouth and eat away at your teeth compelling the need to do something to get that film out. At their best, however, rom-coms are like really rich, dark chocolate. More than just candy for kids, they can be complex and sophisticated bites of wonderful.

500 Days definitely falls into this latter category. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that 500 Days just might be the best romantic comedy since Annie Hall. Romantic comedies, like any other genre film, has to abide by certain conventions -- boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy tries to get girl back. But abiding by these conventions does not mean being limited by them. The best romantic comedies bend and twist these standards in such a way as to reinvent the very genre itself.

The basic structure of 500 Days is non-linear. We start at the end of the relationship and we move throughout time, figuring out where the relationship went wrong. The film jumps from day 1 to day 350 to day 20, etc. Rather than following a simple chronology, this film basically goes against the grain and seeks out important thematic moments. It ties together seemingly disparate periods so that we can see that a relationship does not slowly dissolve in a clean, logical manner. In fact, if nothing else, this film revels in the very illogic of love.

The film's male lead, Tom (played by Joseph Gordon Levitt, who's had quite a career revival since his appearance in Brick), tries desperately to understand his relationship, to make sense of what happened, to find a logical a reason for the relationship's demise because if he can do that then he can figure out an equally logical way to fix it. Without giving too much away, I'll simply add that the film ends in a way that defies logic. But, again, that's what makes this film so wonderful. In some ways, it echoes the ending of Annie Hall -- the relationship is over and so Alvie Singer (Woody Allen's character) creates a play in which he can revise the ending of his relationship -- to create a neatly packaged fiction to make up for the messy reality.

I realize that many people go to see films as an escape and there's certainly nothing wrong with that but I think the best films provide a particular kind of escape that allows us to return to real life with a refreshed, renewed, and newly enlightened understanding.

Away We Go (viewed at Pacific Place on June 17, 2009)

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:12:56 -0800

The J. and I originally went to the theater to watch 500 Days of Summer (which we did ... see above) but after the film, I stood in the lobby waiting for her to return from the bathroom and noticed that right in front of me Away We Go was about to start in ten minutes. While the movie intrigued us mildly because it was directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty and Revolutionary Road) and it featured Maya Rudolph in her first dramatic role, we figured it was ultimately DVD-worthy. Turns out we were right.

After a bit of hesitation, we decided to casually walk into the theater figuring that a bunch of 20 year olds on a Friday night aren't really going to care that a couple of middle-aged types are walking into a theater. The film wasn't bad but I think if we had actually paid money to see it, we would have been disappointed and if we had been watching it at home, we might have fallen asleep.

The basic premise is that Maya Rudolph and her beau, played by John Krasinsky (of The Office), find themselves on the verge of an unplanned journey into parenthood. Not sure where to raise their child, they decide to roam around visiting friends and family in Arizona, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Montreal, and Florida. The film is incredibly episodic ... the premise is the only thing that holds these episodes together and while there are a few interesting moments, the film overall just doesn't work as a film. In fact, I can't imagine this film being interesting to anyone who isn't expecting or thinking about having a child. If children are way in your past or way in your future (or maybe just not present at all) then this film is going to seem incredibly annoying.

This definitely feels like a message film -- that Sam Mendes wanted to somehow find a way that two people could become parents without becoming tools. If American Beauty and Revolutionary Road were treatises on the suffocating ennui of middle-aged, suburban life -- on how having kids and living in the suburbs will destroy your soul -- then Away We Go is the search for the antidote. It's a film about heading straight into middle-age while trying to find a way to escape all the trappings of being middle-age.

This is not a particularly new idea but it's been done better (Lawrence Kasdan's The Big Chill and Hal Hartley's Trust come immediately to mind). There's a thin line between a deeply personal film and a flawed, self-indulgent one. This definitely felt like the latter. I can respect Mendes' desire to work through these ideas, I just wish he didn't feel compelled to make

Let the Right One In (viewed at home on May 06, 2009)

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:07:30 -0800

I have no idea why vampires seem to be such a part of our zeitgeist. I do think there's some kind of connection but, alas, I think it will only reveal itself through history. I will conjecture, however, that the vampire fascination is closely linked with the zombie revival that's been a regular part of cinema for at least fifteen years. At the risk of revealing the extent of my geekiness, I like to think of the relationship between vampires and zombies as analogous to the relationship between elves and orcs (from The Lord of the Rings).

Of course, one could also argue that the fascination is overdetermined -- that there really is no single clear answer just as there really is no single, definitive representation of vampires. Case in point, this little gem of a film from Sweden. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (Låt den rätte komma in) often gets discussed in the same breath as TWILIGHT. They both feature young vampires in love with young mortals but, really, that's where any similarities end. Twilight focuses on a tortured relationship between two people who want each other but can't have one another without risking death. It's the ultimate cinematic love story in that most films about love are never really about love but only about seeking after love. Let's face it, there's probably nothing more boring than a film about a couple who are already in love and just living everyday life.

To a large extent, Let the Right One In follows a similar path except that this "love" is not couched in deeply romantic language but one of desperation and alienation. In other words, our desire for another -- for a beloved -- is not a beautiful thing but rather a defensive weapon we use to guard ourselves against the coldness of the world. Love is a kind of necessary comfort and, to that extent, becomes the target of obsession.

For most American audiences, Let the Right One In can be painfully slow. There's a very restrained pace that makes the film's climactic ending that much more powerful. It may not have the bang you see in an American action thriller but the bang is even more powerful because it's so much more restrained. Normally, I don't hold back from leaking the endings. After all, by the time I get around to writing about a film, it's been out a couple of months already. But, in this case, I'm going to keep mum.

Oh ... and make sure to see this soon because an American version is in the works and I can guarantee you that it's going to suck.

The Hangover (viewed at Factoria Square Cinemas on June 27)

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:34:39 -0800

If you've read my earlier review on Year One, you'll know that the movie I had really wanted to see, was anxiously waiting to see was this one, The Hangover. I went to see this with the Mini-Ster who, by the way, has an excellent little food blog. I only mention this because prior to seeing this movie we met for dinner at this cool little faux deli, Goldberg's Famous Delicatessen. On the surface, this is yet another horrific attempt to create a completely sanitized cultural experience: in short, Goldberg's feels like the suburban mall version of a NY deli. But, the good news is that the food is actually quite good and while it may not be Katz's or some The Stage Deli, it's a pretty darn good substitute.

I originally wanted to see The Hangover simply because it seemed like a fun film and I liked the general narrative structure: bunch of guys trying to retrace their steps. Anything that breaks with standard linear narratives -- even a little bit -- is always welcome. So, while I fully expected to enjoy this film, I never considered just how much I would enjoy it.

On the surface, it would be very easy to confuse this film with all those annoying and increasingly inane Judd Apatow films. Don't get me wrong, I love Apatow's foray into television (via Freaks and Geeks) and both 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up were entertaining enough but the whole genre of the man-child films has been getting very tiresome as of late. Do we really need another movie about men who refuse to grow up, who see adulthood and responsibility as compromises to their slacker lifestyles, who see women as burdensome necessities? While The Hangover started this way, it fortunately veered off in an entirely different and far more interesting direction.

Ed Helms' character, Stu Price, is probably the most stock of the core foursome. He's an ineffectual dentist whose girlfriend has successfully castrated him to the point that he can't even tell her that he's going off to Vegas with his friends but instead must lie that he's attending a wine tasting in Napa Valley. Justin Bartha, as the disappeared groom, plays the role of the film's McGuffin. Zach Galifianakis, playing the dim-witted brother of the bride, provides some of the funniest moments in the film. But the real surprise -- and, again, the thing that elevates this film beyond just entertaining -- is Bradley Cooper's character, Phil Wenneck.

As the ringleader of this motley crew, Phil, a teacher, secretly takes the money that is supposed to go for a class field trip and uses it to help fund the bachelor party for his best friend. He has very little sense of responsibility but, as the film progresses, what you see is a man trying to balance adolescent and adult needs. He's a man who wants to party all night but is beginning to realize that there are consequences (beyond broken teeth, stolen cars, and pissed-off Asian gangsters). I don't want to get too heavy here because, at its core, this is simply a buddy flick -- an exceedingly well-done buddy flick -- and not any great meditation on aging or a deconstruction of Peter Pan. But, just as Christopher Nolan's Batman films elevated the fantastic elements of comic books into the realm of real life, Todd Phillips (the film's director) has also elevated the man/boy flick into something far more interesting, real, and, yes, hilarious.

Year One (viewed at the Fork and Flick - Atlanta - on 05/19/09)

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:23:38 -0800

So, let me explain: I was in Atlanta, it was crazy hot, the Hangover was sold out. Those are the three conditions that led me to see a film I otherwise would never have bothered to watch in the theater. It's not that I thought Year One would suck, but I saw it more as a mildly entertaining, mindless throwaway films much like those old Canonball Run movies starring Burt Reynolds and Dom Delouise.

Movies like these are basically episodic comedies: a series of SNL-type sketches strung together with an incredibly flimsy and nearly ridiculous plots. In the Canonball Run films (or almost anything Burt Reynolds has done in the thirty years between Deliverance and Boogie Nights), the plot is really besides the point. The actual outcome of the story is secondary to what happens on the way to the end.

It's no mystery that Jack Black and Michael Cerra's respective characters will end up victorious in the end, that they will be redeemed and they will get the girls. If this comes as a surprise to anyone then ... well, hello to the planet Earth, you must be new here.

No, the reason you go see this film is that you want to see a few gags and have a few light chuckles while making sure that your brain falls into a deep state of relaxation. Like I said before, I normally wouldn't have bothered to watch this in a theater. As much as I like most of the cast of this film, this was so obviously a watch-at-home quality film. But sometimes it's just nice to sit in an air-conditioned theater especially if said theater serves food and beer. Heck, it was almost like being at home.

Star Trek (viewed at Cinerama on 05/09/09)

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:36:20 -0800

This was one of those great dinner and a movie nights. The J. and I met up with the Mini-Ster and Waldorf at La Tavolata for a light pasta dinner and then rushed over to Cinerama to stand in line. This was opening weekend and we knew it would be a packed house. I had been looking forward to this film for some time and while such anticipation can often lead to unrealistic expectations that inevitably fall short, I'm happy to say this was not such the case. Even the J., who was originally reluctant to go, turned to me immediately after the film ended and said, "oooh, we should watch this again."

I'm a fan of J.J. Abrams but not a fawning one. I love Lost and Alias but thought Cloverfield was ridiculous. I felt his take on Mission Impossible was interesting at best ... actually, I thought his casting decision to put in Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain was interesting ... the rest of the film not so much. With that said, I thought his treatment of Star Trek was brilliant. By creating a shift in the time continuum, Abrams was able to recreate the beloved history of Star Trek while not necessarily violating it. In other words, he's making it very clear that while this new series contains the same crew, the Enterprise has come together under very different circumstances. The inclusion of Nimoy as a time-traveling Spock acknowledges the old, canonical history but, again, puts it in the new role of an alternative

I'm really curious what Abrams is going to do for a follow-up. After such a smart reinvention of the franchise, do you continue to move forward in new ways or do you backtrack into more conventional territory?

I Love You, Man (viewed at Pacific Place on 04/05/09)

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:36:12 -0800

I really feel bad about admitting that I like this film -- part of me is so sick and tired of the fraternity of Judd Apatow films. I realize that Apatow had nothing to do with this film but it definitely fits into his little cinematic universe of inhabited by half-men, half-children. It's always seemed odd to me how much we enjoy celebrating male characters with sad, pathetic Peter Pan complexes. Is it really so laudable to refuse to grow up and take responsibility? Think, for example, about Dustin Hoffman's character, Benjamin, in The Graduate. Say what you want about cultural revolutions, generational differences, etc. At its core, The Graduate is a film about a guy who refuses to take responsibility for his actions, who refuses to act like an adult. Sure, the world might suck but moping around the swimming pool all day doesn't make it suck any less. As many of my film students have commented: I don't understand what the hell is his problem.

So, now we have films like I Love You, Man. Maybe the one interesting or different aspect about this film is the focus is not on the guy who refuses to grow up but on the guy who needs to loosen up and discover his inner man-child ... hmmm, isn't that the premise of Hook?

Again, I think this is a perfectly fun film and perhaps if it hadn't been for all those Apatow films that came before it I would enjoy it much more.

Monsters Vs. Aliens in 3-D (viewed at Pacific Science Center IMAX on 04/04/09)

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:19:48 -0800

I've been really bad about keeping up to date with this blog. In order to get caught up, I'm going to make my next few entries rather short. Hopefully, as soon as I'm caught up, I'll be able to put up longer, more substantive posts.

The J. and I took my nephew, Little-A, to see this at the giant IMAX theater. On a really basic level, watching just about anything on a giant IMAX screen (especially in 3-D) is a visceral thrill. So, while I won't say the film bored me, I do think it was pretty run of the mill. I've never been a fan of Dreamworks Animation. Most of their films seemed like second-rate animation made on the cheap for the kiddie crowd: Shrek, Madagascar, Shark Tale, etc. These are all perfectly fine for the primary-school crowd (like my nephew) but there isn't much substance. Pixar, on the other hand, make really great films that appeal not only to children but adults as well.

Dreamworks films are exactly what they are: pure surface. There's no interesting subtext or subtlety. Seth Rogen had a few interesting one-liners but Hugh Laurie was completely wasted in this film. I don't understand why they bothered to get a big-name to play a throw-away role like this.