Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (***)

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
Directed by David Yates

***

Can I correctly comment on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince without ever reading any of the books and ignoring all except one of the films (Sorcerer's Stone)? Probably not, but I'm going to anyway. With a franchise as immensely popular as Potter it is almost impossible to come across a part of the story without at least some of the context and back story, and even if you do, it certainly isn't very comprehensible or interesting. Luckily for me, Half-Blood Prince was a beautifully-made, wonderfully-told story that indulges in its own imagination to the fullest.

In this installment of the series, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is escorted back to Hogwarts by the ethereal Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), personally. Before they even return to the wizard's school, though, they visit a trashed and abandoned home, where they find Prof. Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) disguised as an armchair. A former Hogwart's teacher, Slughorn is now retired, but Dumbledore uses his wit and cleverness to convince him to return. Of coarse, the main reason Slughorn chooses to come back is because he wants an opportunity to work with "The Chosen One" Harry Potter.

Why does Dumbledore covet Slughorn's return so desperately? He feels that Slughorn may hold to the secret as to the evil Voldemort's nonstanding, amoral existence. Once upon a time, when Voldemort was just a student, he admired Prof. Slughorn, and Dumbledore supposes that there was a moment where Slughorn influenced the move to the dark side. Using Harry as the main grift, Dumbledore hopes to pierce Slughorn's iron shield, and possibly find the cause of Voldemort's seeming immortality.

On the way to Hogwart's, Harry is reunited with his best friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). Ron, sporting a red mop-top hairdo, and Hermione, constantly countering her know-it-all attitude with her dainty & modest beauty, are always in a peripheral battle of the heart, never willing to admit their true feelings. Harry slips in and out of the drama, never feeling like much of a third wheel, because he has his eyes set on a beauty of his own: Ron's sister Ginny (Bonnie Wright).

There is quite a bit going on in Half-Blood Prince, which makes it rather hard to compartmentalize and summarize efficiently. The usual suspects appear, such as the melevolent Prof. Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), the crazed Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter), and the dark, but cowardly Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). They come in and out casually, and with such ease, that even someone who has never seen the films before (like me) is never left scratching their heads, pondering their apperances.

I became sufficiently sucked in by this film, and its story, even though I am not necessarily a fan of the franchise, or the genre for that matter. I'm not sure why, though I can say that I found the characters surprisingly empathetic and vibrant. Each person is fleshed out to the fullest, and never are we able to predict their behavior, but they never do things which seem off-course. Whether it's discovering the meaning of love, or debating the darkness of betrayal, they always seem to find answers to their problems that are organic to the story.

Surely, Radcliffe is the main force behind this film, but the main strength comes from two undeniably strong supporting performances. Jim Broadbent as the gregarious potion-maker Slughorn is a dream of humor and sincerity. Always a pleasure to watch on the screen, Broadbent takes a rather narrow character and turns him into a very sizable personality which steals almost every scene he appears in. Also, Michael Gambon as the wise, humored Dumbledore is great, with his rumbling voice always dispersing pearls to Harry and his other pupils.

I'm sure there were plenty of references and sub-plots that I would have understood better if I wasn't so completely ignorant of Potter, but I believe it's a testament to Half-Blood Prince that I greatly enjoyed myself, despite having little to no context.

Great Films: Hedwig and The Angry Inch (2001)

GREAT FILMS: HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH (2001)
Written for the Screen and Directed by John Cameron Mitchell

In the late 90's, actor John Cameron Mitchell and his songwriting friend Stephen Trask combined to write the successful off-Broadway play Hedwig and the Angry Inch. The play, about a "slip of a girly boy" from East Germany, was an almost immediate audience favorite, and ran for two years. Consisting of mostly punk rock performances, and relatively few characters, Mitchell was mostly balked at when he suggested turing his performance into a feature film. That Mitchell was able to translate the energy, mania, and exuberance to the silver screen is truly a movie miracle.

When we are introduced to Hedwig (Mitchell reprising his stage role), she is standing in front of a small restaurant crowd holding two sides of an elaborate cape which reads: "Yankee Go Home! ... With Me!". From the opening shot, the film is erupting with punk rock music and abrasive energy, and we are immediately transported into Hedwig's world. She has taken her band, The Angry Inch, on a cross-country road trip to follow her ex-boyfriend/bandmate Tommy Gnosis (a young Michael Pitt), who has stolen all of her songs and has used them to become huge pop star.

So, while Tommy is filling out Busch stadium, Hedwig is across the street performing in front of a buffet and a hostile audience. Hedwig will refuse to admit that she's actually stalking Tommy, though it's her quixotic journey to come face-to-face with the man who stole from her that drives the plot as a whole. As they continue to perform, Hedwig is able to tell her life story, and we flashback to when she was just a young East German homosexual boy named Hansel with little-to-no identity. He meets an American Army general who offers to marry him so he can move out of Communist reign.

Hansel's mother, Hedwig, tells him to take her passport and her name, and that he will be able to use that to pass off as a woman and become married. One drawback, unless Hansel gets an official sex change, he can never really prove he's a woman, and therefore cannot leave to America. He reluctantly goes through with the procedure, which is botched, and leaves him nothing but his "angry inch". The new Hedwig makes it to America, but is quickly abandoned by the Army general, and out of his dismay, he falls back into his love for music, and becomes a self-proclaimed "internationally-ignored punk rock star of stage and screen".

Written, directed, and starring Mitchell, he is in many ways the sole force behind the greatness of this film. What separates his work in Hedwig from other high-profile drag performances (like say Nathan Lane in The Birdcage or Hugo Weaving in Priscilla, Queen of the Dessert), is that this is not a man recreating the aura of drag queen performance, this is a drag queen performance, and Mitchell takes that aspect of the film just as seriously as Hedwig the character does. We never feel uncomfortable watching Mitchell as a "woman", because he's completely comfortable in the skin of Hedwig, and is even (dare I say it?) a pretty hot woman.

The film genre of musicals have fallen greatly within recent decades. Along with the Western, the genre has failed vehemently to connect with younger generations, mostly because it is a rather stubborn niche which rarely evolves. Hedwig is rather revolutionary because of how it tweaks the movie-musical, while still pandering to most of its sensibilities. Sure, the songs are not actually within the storyline (they are all heard as live performances, in front of audiences), but it is hard not to call this film a musical, because songs compound the film from beginning to end.

Much credit must be given to Mitchell's songwriting partner Steven Trask who wrote all of the music and lyrics for the play and the film. Songs like "The Origin of Love", "Midnight Radio" and the various versions of "Wicked Little Town" sprawl with epic poetry, while "Exquisite Corpse" and the Hedwig monologue song "Angry Inch" are exploding with punk rock chords. "Sugar Daddy" introduces humorous country sensibilities, creating great irony considering the song's subject matter, and the rather large-scale production piece "Wig in a Box" sparks with stage sense, and reminds the audience that this is, in fact, a musical.

I've always said that I'm a sucker for a film with good music, even if it's mediocre. Hedwig and the Angry certainly is not mediocre, but the music supports the storyline so well, that it is only a plus that the songs are exquisite. It sparkles much like a great pop song, eclipsing levels of morality and sexual orientation with its buoyant energy, and did it all without shying away from its transgressive themes. Way before Brokeback Mountain and Milk were so comfortable with their open homosexuality, Hedwig and the Angry Inch waved its freak-flag proudly, and even had the gaul to be sunny about it.

Trailer Watch: Brothers

I don't know what kind of deal Jim Sheridan has with U2 that he must involve one of their songs in every one of his movies, but that's besides the point. I've been waiting for this film for a while (it's a holdover from last year), and now that the trailer has emerged, I'm rather surprised by the level of volatility. Sheridan is known for his hard-hitting, acting-centric films, and I certainly like all of the actors in this one. I still think it's a film to get excited about.

Brüno (***)

BRÜNO
Directed by Larry Charles

***

I don't believe I've ever seen an R-rated film get away with as much as the film Brüno has just gotten away with. When you consider that this same director-star tandem had earlier collaborated on the equally-abrasive Borat in 2006, it's hard to walk into Brüno without at least some sense of the depravity you may be witnessing. Alas, they manage to somehow shock us once again, by creating a film that is equal parts exhibitionism with a social agenda and a work of bad taste that would have made Jon Waters proud.

Bruno (the mind behind it all: Sacha Baron Cohen) is a fantastically gay, Austrian fashionista who works for "the most important fashion TV station in all German-speaking countries--excluding Germany". His "in or out" judgments are usually a rather authoritative accommodation in the Austrian fashion world, and his ego is so massive that he even has an assistant for his assistant. Frequently equipped with extravagant clothing and a bleached anus, Bruno is the most extreme example of a fashion diva.

Things go horribly wrong when he shows up at a fashion show sporting his brand new outfit which is made entirely out of Velcro. In the middle of an interview, he begins getting stuck to all of the outfits, and the debacle ends with him spilled upon the catwalk, with more than 20 pieces of clothing attached to his body. After the incident, Bruno is blacklisted from all fashion shows, and soon fired from his position on television. What is Bruno to do? For him, the answer is simple: move to America and become a superstar celebrity.

Accompanied by his mousy assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), Bruno heads to Los Angeles and meets with agents and various others in hope of becoming famous. At first, he thinks his über-homoerotic television stylings will get him a show gig, but that is quickly dismissed. After that, Bruno attempts many different portals into the world of celebrity including adopting a black baby (he swaps it for an iPod), trying to solve a world crisis, and even ponders the possibility of maybe turning straight.

Sure, what makes Brüno so interesting is its utter fearlessness. Within twenty minutes, the audience is already put through certain gay sex acts you never thought were possible. The main question you usually have to ask yourself with a film like Brüno is this: is the shock there for purpose or for laughs? For Baron Cohen's sake, I hope its for the laughs, because I don't see what social message can be made from watching a man pour champaign out of his boyfriend's ass.

The film has been criticized for exploiting gay stereotypes, and I believe that's fair. I will say this though, I don't feel nearly as bad for the gay community as I do for the poor subjects who fall victims to Bruno's acts. As with Borat, part of the excitement is wondering whether or not they're in on the joke. Whether it's Paula Abdul refusing to eat sushi off of a naked Mexican man, or Ron Paul rejecting participation in a sex tape, it's usually more fun to watch Baren Cohen's plans become disintegrated as opposed to see someone who is a good sport.

In his two films, Baren Cohen has used very simplistic, foreign caricatures to take a long, probing finger and poke away at American sensibilities. In Borat, a sexist middle-Eastern man presented the bare truth of gun-toting, God-complexed red staters who confuse America with the city upon a hill. This time, Baren Cohen is going after pop culture, and the over-eager quests so many talentless people will go through in order to become famous. Baren Cohen presents rather shocking, occasionally obscene gay images in front of people, and their reactions display perfectly why something like Prop. 8 can exist in this day and age.

There are some serious issues with sexual repression in America, though I'm not sure Brüno is the answer that we need. Baron Cohen is a master of deviance, and the dangerous situations in which he places himself in for the sake of a laugh is rather alerting. I can understand why homosexual leaders are upset with the film, though it's hard not to laugh at some of the antics. Even the most conservative kinds of people will probably find themselves giggling from time to time.

Moon (***1/2)

MOON
Directed by Duncan Jones

***1/2

Duncan Jones may be the next big name in films, and I'm not just biased because his father is Ziggy Stardust. His first feature, Moon is a film which is nearly impossible to pull off, and even harder to market. A rather pigeon-holed plot and a severely limited number of characters presents a rather alarming movie concept to most people, but somehow Jones, along with his leading man Sam Rockwell, create a clever, tense, and beautiful film.

In an unknown future, Earth is now using solar energy taken by a technological space station on the far side of the moon. The station is run by a pleasantly helpful robot named GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey), but all of the dirty work is done by a man named Sam Bell (Rockwell). Sam has signed a 3-year contract to be the maintenance man for GERTY, and he fulfill that contract by living on the moon, alone, with little to do but carve building models and play table tennis against himself.

Doing a standard keep-up job within his space rover outside the base, Sam sees visions on the surface of the moon, which distract him and cause him to get into an accident. He wakes up inside the base, GERTY standing over him and nursing him back to health. As his perception begins to crystallize, he begins to notice strange things, begins building mistrust toward GERTY, and makes a discovery so vital and shocking, I shouldn't disclose it here.

Much of this film's plot sits upon a twist that happens only a third of the way through the film. I'm not someone who necessarily believes in the concept of a spoiler, but I surely don't feel that this would be the appropriate platform to divulge certain details. More or less, this story shift has little to do with this film's greatness, because that credit should go toward the talent of Jones and Rockwell, who allow this story to unfold so organically and wonderfully that we are completely stimulated throughout the film, even at times when we're not very much sure what is going on.

On such a small scale (the film has only one fully-realized character, and two set pieces), it is surprising how lushly the film is executed. With the help of cinematographer Gary Shaw, the way Jones recreates this quasi-moon atmosphere is spectacular. With a beautiful set piece, ringing loud homages to 2001: A Space Odyssey, the film's polished look brings out the best in its story. The film's time-table is one of its biggest mysteries, but we are never too worried about it, because we feel secure with the surroundings.

It's great to see a film which utilizes real suspense, as opposed to the manufactured kind which plagues most Hollywood films these days. Jones presents a more Hitchcockian style, building the anxiety throughout, further emphasizing Sam's isolation in space. Despite Sam's casualness with his work, it always seems like what he's doing can be extremely dangerous (one cracked helmet, and he's done for). Particularly, the ending is exquisitely excuted with great excitement.

Sam Rockwell always seems to find ways to be brilliant in various efforts. Last year, his performance within the supremely transgressive Choke was spectacular, and the year before, his troubled divorcee in Snow Angels was the most under appreciated thing in the movies that year. It's a shame that he is seldom recognized for his talent, though based on the roles that he chooses, he doesn't seem to be the kind of actor who cares about extraneous accommodations, but just getting the job done. As the sole force of Moon, Rockwell continues this trend, and hopefully his performance does not get swallowed like all of the others.

The biggest complaint one can make about Moon, I feel, is it's lack of purpose (truthfully, this is usually the biggest fault of most feature debuts). Humor finds its way into the story on a frequent basis without sacrificing the tension, but it's rather hard to sit in the theater and think about why exactly this story is so special. All that said, Moon is a wonderful blend of a forceful science fiction and surgical character study, and is the best debut film I've seen so far this year.

Post No. 200

Maybe Aldous Snow can help us all get into the mood for my 200th Blog Post...

Whatever Works (***)

WHATEVER WORKS
Written and Directed by Woody Allen

***

Within the span of Woody Allen's long and prolific career, he has surely recycled some themes about love and life. He has some very devout opinions about the way humanity carries itself and those strong beliefs weave themselves into his screenplays and fall out of the mouths of his more wise characters. Surely, his ideas about religion and morality have rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and the manner in which he discusses the unpredictable nature of love has given him some detractors (particularly given his very public and controversial personal life). Over the last few years, Woody and his films have become caricatures of themselves, but somehow Whatever Works manages to escape that, and while the same system is still in place, there is quite a freshness in the characters.

The film is about Boris Yellnikoff (Larry David), who was at one time a prospective Nobel Prize nominee, and brilliant metaphysicist. These days, his neuroticism has left him mostly friendless, terrified of death, and has alienated his wife, who divorces him after he tries to commit suicide by jumping out of the window of their downtown New York apartment (he survives because he landed on a canopy). The only friends that he does have become quickly unenthused by his constant negativity and condescending attitude.

When Boris is coming home one day, he finds a young girl laying in trash outside of the door of his apartment. She is Melody (Evan Rachel Wood), a very young and very naive Southerner who hopes that she can stay with Boris since she has nowhere else to go. Begrudgingly, Boris allows her to stay, and is quickly forwarding his dark life theory upon her. Mistaking his ponitification for wisdom, Melody grows close to Boris, even though she is more than four decades younger than he is, and even through his rough exterior, Boris begins to find charm in Melody as well.

Their unorthodox relationship becomes even more complicated when Melody's mother Marietta (Patricia Clarkson) shows up. Her husband, Melody's father, has left her for her best friend, and now she too has nowhere to go. She stays with Boris and Melody, even though her contempt with Boris grows quickly. Marietta quickly becomes untangled by the New York City lifestyle, and goes from her pious self, to a promiscuous photographer who sleeps with two men simultaneously. The only thing that doesn't change for Marietta, is her hatred for Boris.

Other zany things occur: such as a young English actor (Henry Cavill) who becomes smitten with Melody and hopes to lure her from Boris, and John (Ed Begley Jr.), Melody's meddling, God-fearing father who comes to New York City hoping to find redemption. The plot lines unfold into all sorts of preposterous, but we are never really questioning any of it, because the film begins with Boris ignoring reality to talk directly to the audience. Its own self-awareness prevents any trouble we may have suspending disbelief.

On paper, the match up of Woody Allen and Larry David seems like perfection. Woody has spent forty years creating the very character that David has perfected on his television show Curb Your Enthusiasm. It does not go as smoothly as many may hope, David takes Woody's disagreeableness and turns it into pure aggression, but all that said, David is one of the more formidable Woody surrogates of the last few years. Of course, addressing the audience and a negative world-view are both Woody staples, so David has many references to look toward.

The main attraction within this film, though, is Wood and Clarkson. As two formerly-ethical Mississipeans swayed into the swinging life of New York City, the two gifted actresses bring enough sweetness and sincerity to make the tranformation seem so much less contrived than it actually is. Wood, a very exciting young actress known mostly for darker films like Thirteen and The Wrestler has a whole lot of fun in this role, allowing Melody to continue possessing her innocence even through her evolution. For Clarkson, we have another in a litany of exceptional work.

It will be very easy to watch Whatever Works and see that Woody has become stunted in his storytelling. It comes as no surprise that the film's screenplay was actually composed in the 70's before Annie Hall. It still possesses that quasi aspect of his films from that time: containing characters that seem isolated within a priveleged world within upper-class New York City. I do not fault Woody for going back to the well, particularly because I didn't care for either of his European films Match Point or Vicky Cristina Barcelona. There is only one reason why Whatever Works works, and that is because the comedy is sincere and, best of all, funny.

Public Enemies (***1/2)

PUBLIC ENEMIES
Directed by Michael Mann

***1/2

Public Enemies may be one of the most revolutionary gangster films ever made. Or it may not be. I don't think the film, or its filmmakers, care either way. Michael Mann, the best stylist behind the camera, continues to work his magic with his latest film; something a little more modest in terms of thematic ideals, but overtly ambitious in terms of its visuals. One of the first great films of 2009, Public Enemies decidedly sucks in its audience with its suave abrasiveness and melts you away with its stunning beauty.

John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) robs banks--very matter-of-factually. He has the supreme confidence that any criminal of his stature should possess; by which I mean, he knows he will never get caught, because those who do get caught aren't nearly as organized as he is. Along with his partner 'Red' Hamilton (Jason Clarke), Dillinger famously weaves himself in and out of banks, sometimes in less than two minutes. The newspapers of the early years of the Great Depression frequently had his picture on the cover, and he developed quite a celebrity.

The public created a Robin Hood mystique about him, since he infamously would not take the money of innocent bystanders, just the bank's cash (but who's money was in the bank? the public didn't care much for that question). Dillinger very much relished the fame, and hubris could be seen as one of his major flaws--the other being overbearing loyalty. When he meets a French coat check girl named Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), his infatuation becomes manic, and he swears to always take care of her no matter what.

With his girl, his gang, and his money, Dillinger had it all in the early '30s, and his seemingly unstoppable operation infurated the Washington beauricrats, particularly FBI head J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup). Hoover, always the oppotunist, creates a specific task force to take down Dillinger, and he appoints good ol' boy Melvin Pervis (Christian Bale) to head the man-hunt. An intense search, which leads up to an inevitable end at the Biograph, pulsates with tension and energy in a way that only Michael Mann can do it.

The anticipation for this film has been enormous, many presuming that this may be Michael Mann's home run film. I don't think this film possesses the spectacular blend of cinematic characterization and watershed filmmaking the way films like Heat or Collateral did. All that said, Public Enemies is certainly Mann's most ambitious endeavor: a period piece with cold distance from its atmosphere that nonetheless contains an attention to detail that never allows you to deny its authenticity.

In a way that may put off many theatrical purists, Mann tells the classic gangster story differently from the way anybody has ever done it before. He doesn't bother diving into the psychology of Dillinger. At one moment, Dillinger spills out his life story to Billie in about a minute, and caps it off by asking her, "What else do you need to know?". As an audience, it is occasionally frustrating that Mann points this question directly at us, and leaves us in the cold, never truly letting us into the lives, but just allowing the actions to speak for themselves.

When Martin Scorsese made Goodfellas in 1990, he transformed the gangster genre by incorporating a breezy editing style and a comfortable window into the crime world that was never allowed during the crime pictures of the Production Code. Public Enemies is attempting a similar transformation, only this time, he's going in the opposite direction. Dillinger and Pervis do the things that they do because that is their jobs, and much in the fashion of Mann's film Heat, the film illustrates how neither would exist without the other. There is no such thing as good if there is no such thing as evil.

Despite the lack of characterization, the performances certainly are not mediocre. Depp, a certified movie star, portrays Dillinger appropriately, allowing the nonchalance and gregariousness shine through the soft-hearted man inside. Bale plays Pervis with a tortured conservatism. With a character with such a one-track mind as Pervis, it's hard to portray the damage inside, but Bale's talent is good enough to make him amiable. As Dillinger's loyal girl, the stunning Cotillard portrays Billie with much grace and assertiveness.

I wouldn't call this Michael Mann's home run. It is certainly an astounding piece of filmmaking, possessing enough of Mann's visual motifs that blow you away. With the help of cinematographer Dante Spinotti, he has created the best-looking film of the last few years, and while many will bemoan its chilly persona, it's rather difficult to dismiss its beautiful austerity.

Away We Go (**1/2)

AWAY WE GO
Directed by Sam Mendes

**1/2

After the enormous success of American Beauty, filmmaker Sam Mendes has been biding his time on melodramatic froth and getting Kate Winslet pregnant. Road To Perdition was a beautifully-lit father-and-son drama; Jarhead was a poor man's Three Kings; and Revolutionary Road was, though underrated, so unbelievably emotionally repellent that most audiences decided to ditch their Kate-Leo love, and skipped the film altogether. Away We Go is quite the thematic departure for Mendes, and though it is quite a hit-or-miss film, it is an interesting direction which Sam Mendes has taken.

The story revolves around a thirty-something couple: the charismatic, man-child Burt (John Krasinski), and the reserved, but well-humored Verona (Maya Rudolph). When Verona becomes pregnant, they are not very secure with their current lifestyles. Their home is ratty and doesn't have any heat. Verona believes that their lack of any fluency may be due to the fact that they are simply not very competent in life.

The two hoped to use Burt's eccentric parents (Catherine O'Hara & Jeff Daniels) as a crutch during their child's infancy, but they decide rather spontaneously to move to Belgium, and rent their home to a random man named 'Fareef' before allowing Burt and Verona to use it. Burt and Verona decide that they'll take a cross-country trip in hopes of finding the perfect place to raise their unborn child. Their trip will include Phoenix, Madison, Montreal, and Miami, where they'll interweave visits with various former friends, bosses, and family members.

In Phoenix, they see Lily (Alison Janney), Verona's one-time boss and a volatile personality who tarnishes her family to their faces and seems to relish attracting uncomfortable situations. While in Madison, they see Burt's childhood friend LN (Maggie Gyllenhaal; pronounced 'Ellen'), who has become an eccentric, married to an idealist hippie, and passionately refuses to let any of her children ride in a stroller. In Montreal, they meet up with old college buddies (Chris Messina, Melanie Lynskey) who seem to be living a euphoric existence, but a deep secret suggests otherwise.

There is a great sub-plot toward the end of the film involving Burt's brother Courtney (a wonderful, if limited Paul Schneider), and how he deals with his wife leaving him. I bring this up because this is a film about two interesting, if static characters waltzing their way through various sub-plots which are sometimes intriguing, and other times terribly uninteresting. Particularly, the sequence with Burt's parents and the Phoenix sequence which opens the film, set the story up for a bumpy start which makes it hard to appreciate all of the better moments which came after.

Rudolph and Krasinski are two actors for which I have true admiration for. I love Karisinki's work on "The Office", and Rudolph's comedienne work on "SNL" and other shows and films are excellent. It's not that they're particularly bad in this film, because they seem to have a well-established sense of what their characters actions say about them. They speak solemnly, and seem like a very comfortable couple. Unfortunately, these characters are so stagnant and unchanging that their travels don't seem to have relevance most of the time.

Of course, some of their journeys are more interesting than others, but even the good ones don't seem to come to anything significant. Gyllenhaal's eccentric character adds the film's first real flair, even though it comes almost halfway through the film. Within the Montreal sequence, Melanie Lynskey (where has she been since Heavenly Creatures?) shows some wonderful subtlety as a married woman with deep-rooted unhappiness. It's good that we like the characters that are guiding us through it all, but their static nature makes the film drag at some of the most important moments.

After such raw, abrasive films, Mendes has produced the cinematic equivalent of the Mendoza line. It's simply not a film which will work up any strong opinions in either direction. You'll like the film. You'll like Krasinski and Rudolph. You'll like the melodic, folksy soundtrack. You'll like seeing Jim Gaffigan with a mustache. Chances are, you won't love anything about it.

Michael Jackson (1958-2009)

Something Non-Movie Related...

I'm not going to lie and say I worshiped Michael Jackson the way a lot of his fans did, but I grew up in a musical house which was dominated by three people: Madonna, Prince, and Michael Jackson. I've been listening to him since I was a little 90's baby. I remember being a toddler, too terrified to watch the music video to 'Thriller', and I also remember the megalomaniacal extravagance behind the 'Smooth Criminal' music video (which co-starred Joe Pesci and had Jack-O turning into some kind of transformer for some reason). He became more and more infamous in recent decades with his battles against child abuse accusations and beyond-bizarre behavior. Jackson never truly recovered his image, even if his fans stuck by him, but what was never debated was his brilliant stretch from the 70's till the early 90's, which included his days as a child star with the Jackson Five, and the single most commercially successful album ever: 'Thriller'. 'Thriller' is usually considered one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, albums of all time, and its astonishing how it lives up to its reputation--even today. So, in tribute, I will now give my personal (and quite frankly, random and subjective) list of Michael Jackson's ten greatest songs...

10. "Thriller"

The title track from that groundbreaking album. Obviously, its music video did a lot to elevate the status of the song itself, but it truly is fascinating the way Jackson stretches such a gimmicky song and turned it into an unstoppable single.

9. "The Girl Is Mine" (feat. Paul McCartney)

This song should get an asterisk, because I'll admit that most of my admiration for it stems from its connection to my favorite Beatle (McCartney). All that said, the two came together to create a poignant, and humorous song about two guys fighting for the same gal. (P.S. either way, its way better then the time Jackson collaborated w/ Eddie Murphy to produce that atrocity 'Wazupwitu?').

8. "Black and White" (feat. Slash on guitar)

This rock hit prompted Jackson to go on the MTV Video Music Awards and dubiously announce that he'd "now be known as The King of Rock". This was one of many embarrassingly misjudged public moments for Jackson later in his life, but it never detracted from his music, particularly this great track.

7. "Off The Wall"

Using funk and sharp vocals, the title track from Michael's first solo album (which many consider his FIRST masterpiece) is such a delightful combination of dance beats and easily Michael's most intensely fierce singing.

6. "The Lady of My Life"

Despite the fact that there was rarely an actual lady in Jackson's life (Lisa Marie Presley doesn't count), he always knew how to deliver love ballads. This song, which caps off 'Thriller', is probably his best of that variety, with its aching emotion and gentle delivery.

5. "Baby Be Mine"

Quite possibly, Jackson's most underrated song. Following the long-winded 'Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'' on 'Thriller', 'Baby Be Mine' comes on like a breath of fresh air. It has standard pop sensibility, but under the eye of Jackson and studio whiz Quincy Jones, this song becomes one of Michael's most pleasant songs.

4. "Human Nature"

Another song from that great second side of 'Thriller'. 'Human Nature' is a quaint, lovely ballad which is highly elevated by some inspired synthesizer playing (much thanks, once again, to Quincy Jones). The song is really an epitome of everything that made Michael so good in his hey-day: sincere singing supported by such wonderfully-produced music. Probably the greatest lyrics he ever sang.

3. "I Want You Back"

The first one; the one that brought him straight into people's homes for the first time. Along with the rest of the Jackson Five, Michael became a superstar with this huge hit in 1969--easily the best from those early years.

2. "Rock With You"

When he danced in that emphatically cheap music video, it didn't matter that he had a cheesy strobe light flashing behind him, making him look like he was performing at a strip club. Why didn't it matter? Because this song is brilliant.

1. "Billie Jean"

I don't even think this is close. The quintessential Michael Jackson song. With its mysterious lyrics and its quasi-Film Noir music video, 'Billie Jean' rose to become one of the best songs of the 80's, and of all-time. The striking bass line, which riffs consistently underneath every line and beat strikes anyone who listens to it, and the mix of funk guitar to highlight the songs infamous themes pierces all listeners. It should be the song he's remembered by.

It's a tragedy that Michael had become a sideshow for the last fifteen years. It had gotten to a point where I'd hoped I wouldn't see him on the news, because for him, there seemed to be no such thing as good press. As hard as it may seem, try not to think of him dancing on cars outside of courtrooms, or playing a ghetto scarecrow in 'The Wiz'. Instead, try to think of all the great songs (perhaps some of the ones I listed?), and remember that he was one of the biggest pop stars of all-time.

The Ten

Big news in Oscarland: starting this fall, the Academy shortlist for Best Picture will now be expanded to ten nominees instead of the accustomed five. This is the first time that the Best Picture nominees will not comprise of five since 1943 (the year Casablanca won--not a bad choice). Why make this move? Academy president Sid Ganis has been spouting about returning to the Academy's "earlier roots", as if to say, that with five more spots available, there will be room for more traditionally snubbed fare.

It's obviously a reaction to last year's hysteria, when The Dark Knight was discarded for the more traditional (and brutally mediocre) The Reader. The idea here is that with ten nominees, they will not have that same embarrassment of ignoring the populist hit for the bait-y drama. Sure, with this change, there is more of a chance of Up getting a nod (when WALL-E was snubbed, I thought animated would never get a nomination again), but other than a difference of two or three films, the Academy has put itself in a very precocious position, in which they can embarrass themselves two-fold

When the difference is one film, and you add five spots, things can become a little haywire. Let's take a look at the last few years:

1999- One of the most disappointing films, in terms of Oscar. The line-up was American Beauty, The Cider House Rules, The Green Mile, The Insider, and The Sixth Sense. With the exception of Beauty, these were all big studio hits, that nudged out such indie classic fare, such as Being John Malkovich, Magnolia, and Three Kings. If there were ten nominees: would any of those three crack the list? In hindsight, it's easy to say yes, but in reality, the Oscar voters would have probably settled for five more Oscar-bait films to fill out the ballot. Films like The End of the Affair, The Talented Mr. Ripley, or The Hurricane would probably have been in the extra five.

2002- The line-up was Chicago, Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and The Pianist. Rather traditional stuff. Seven years later, films like Adaptation, Far From Heaven, About Schmidt, and Punch-Drunk Love have built strong esteem within the film community. If the best picture nominees were ten, I feel Adaptation would have had a good chance to crash the party (with its Meryl Streep/Nic Cage ties), but none of the others would have. Most likely, Frida, Road To Perdition, or maybe even the sleeper hit My Big Fat Greek Wedding probably would have grabbed a nom.

2008- The most recent list--the cause of this change. Best Picture nominees: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader, Slumdog Millionaire. Three pretty good films mixed with two lousy ones. The obvious snubs here were WALL-E and The Dark Knight, but what about the endearing indies The Wrestler or Rachel Getting Married? Not to mention, the comedies In Bruges and Happy-Go-Lucky. With ten, the first two would have definitely slid in, but none of the other four would have had a chance. More likely, the not-well-received, but still traditional Doubt or Gran Torino would have made it in.

My long-winded point is this: having ten available nominations doesn't necessarily open the window for more good films, it just opens the window for more seasonal, bait-y films. Pretty much any film with a serious campaign will have a shot at the list, and that's not what it should be about. We complain when our favorite films don't get nominated, but all that said, it should be hard to get it. Not every lauded film deserves to get special attention, and it stinks to see the Academy botch a stunt like this. This may make a few Dark Knight fans happy, but its those who watch this show annually and take it seriously, that will be disappointed.

The Hangover (***)

THE HANGOVER
Directed by Todd Phillips

***

Better late then never...

It has seemed that the dynamo mystique of Las Vegas has grown over the last few years. Many commercials barrage our screen with that all-too-familiar phrase: "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas". All that said, there are numerous films which go on to show the exact opposite, and much like real life, the debauchery of Vegas can sometimes find its way home with you. The Hangover takes a hilarious, if not refreshing look at this theory, and does it with much fervor.

When Doug (Justin Bartha) decides to have a bachelor party two days before his wedding, the only idea that he can think of is spending a night in Las Vegas with his two best friends. First, there is Phil (Bradley Cooper), a husband and schoolteacher, who steals money from his young students' field trip donations to fund his partying. Then, there is Stu (Ed Helms), a reserved dentist who is caught in a volatile relationship with a possessive and overbearing woman.

Unfortunately, Doug is nearly forced to bring along his troubled brother-in-law Alan (Zack Galifianakis), who kisses dogs and can't be within two-hundred feet of an elementary school. The three travel in Doug's father-in-law's luxury car from Burbank to Sin City, and when they arrive, they book themselves into a villa within Caesar's Palace. Before their night of terror, they get up on the roof, toast to each other, and toast to having a night nobody will forget. Instead, they have a night that no one will remember.

The next morning: they're villa is demolished, a chicken and a tiger are carousing through the room, there's a baby in the closet and Doug is nowhere to be found. The three men think rationally at first, but as time goes by, and their problems are compounded by revelations of the night they don't remember, all hell breaks loose. Phil at one point went to the hospital with broken ribs. Allan stole an Asian gangster's man purse. Also, Stu got married to a sweet hooker and stripper named Jade (Heather Graham--where has she been lately?).

I'm not sure if The Hangover is as clever as some people seem to claim, but it certainly isn't nearly as bad as some reviewers stated on its original release. The film has grown over the last three weeks into a mega-hit based on word-of-mouth, not because there are any movie stars in it (the closest thing to it is Cooper, who has never headlined a film, if I remember correctly). It has risen because it is funny. Director Todd Phillips has very much proven himself to be a master of rowdy humor (Old School, Road Trip), but this is certainly his most polished film.

Is the plot a bit hackneyed? Sure. The film is essentially Bachelor Party: The Next Day, but the reason the film succeeds is because it doesn't really have much interest in being safe. Whether it be a taser to the face, or a geriatric man's ass, there is no image which seems to push the envelope too far. Yet, the dialogue still has freshness, and they do not use the shock value as a crutch. Spot performances from the likes of Mike Epps, Ken Jeong, and (of all people) Mike Tyson weave fluidly throughout the film without disrupting its forward motion.

Phillips capitalizes strongly off of his cast. Cooper, seemingly always cast as a skirt-chasing looker, plays the part to the max. Helms, a veteran of The Office, is the brain of the group, but he perhaps has the most wit of anybody on the film. As for Galifianakis, this may very-well be his starmaking role. He is round and bearded in all the right places, and although his physical appearance lends itself to poking and prodding from everyone, he is still able to get off a couple of his own good lines. Galifianakis plays the part with such playful childishness, that it doesn't seem contrived when he asks the receptionist at the Palace: "Did Caeser actually live here?"

It's difficult not to find yourself enjoying The Hangover, even if it does promote irresponsibility as much as it demeans it. Does the plot unfold rather conveniently? Sure, but so do all movies like this, and most of those movies aren't nearly as funny.

Great Films: Short Cuts (1993)

GREAT FILMS: SHORT CUTS (1993)
Directed by Robert Altman

After a brilliant run in the 70's, Altman had a laborious run of mediocre films in the 1980's (realistically, his best film of that decade is actually Fool For Love by default). In 1992, Altman had just released The Player, which not only got him his third Best Director Oscar nomination, but re-injected Altman into the pantheon of great filmmakers. It was the next year, though, Altman released a nearly three-hour film, based on a collection of short stories by Raymond Carver. Following the meandering, intertwining lives of numerous high-brows and low-lives in Suburban Southern California, Short Cuts is one of Altman's most fully-realized films, and one of the greatest films of the 1990's.

The story follows numerous characters, just like Altman likes it. There is never a point where one particular character takes precedence over the others, and they all flow together so smoothly, that it's 183-minute running time seems to breeze by. The themes throughout the film are as black as night, yet are told with such playfulness, that the film could almost be mistaken as a comedy. In the tradition of his films like Nashville and M*A*S*H, the insecurities and the terrors of the characters expose themselves through eccentricities and inadvertent dialogue, and never lend themselves to melodrama if they can help it.

Among the characters, there is television columnist (Bruce Davison) and his simple wife (Andie McDowell) whose son is hit by a car by a ne'er-do-well waitress (Lily Tomlin). The waitress has an on-again, off-again relationship with an alcoholic limo driver (Tom Waits), and she's constantly reminded by her daughter (Lili Taylor) that she should move on to someone better. That daughter is married to an idiosyncratic make-up artist (Robert Downey Jr.), and they're best friends with a pool cleaner (Chris Penn), and his wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) who does side-work as a phone sex operator.

There is also a tempermental police officer (Tim Robbins), who is having an affair with a single mother (Frances McDormand) who, herself, has a meddling ex-husband (Peter Gallagher). The officer is married to an apathetic woman (Madeline Stowe), who takes her husband's affairs in stride. The officer's wife has a sister (Julianne Moore) who is a painter, and married to an emotionless doctor (Matthew Modine). The doctor isn't happy when his wife invites another married couple over for dinner: a blue-collar fisherman (Fred Ward) and a kids-party clown (Anne Archer).

Among the other characters, there is the TV columnist's estranged father (Jack Lemmon), a meddling baker (Lyle Lovett), and the fisherman's two fishing buddies (Buck Henry & Huey Lewis). There is also the story of an aging jazz crooner (Annie Ross), and her troubled daughter (Lori Singer) who plays a rather melancholic cello. There all come together in this film, displaying all types of emotions--mostly despair.

The most interesting aspect of Short Cuts is the usual, cynical tone with which Altman chooses to let the plot points reveal themselves. Things happen, and plot lines overlap so conveniently, that even the most miserable aspects of the stories transition safely into the most hysterical. In a story about suburban malaise, the film does more than just present the boredom of uptown living, but reveals the sting that comes with everyday tragedy.

Of course, the performances within the film are extraordinary. With so many top-notch actors in one film, I'd find it hard for them not to overshadow themselves scene by scene. Instead, they rarely breach outside of the limits of their characters. Probably the biggest star turn in the film comes from Julianne Moore, as a passive-aggressive painter, who has a lot of trouble coming to grips with her crumbling marriage. In a scene of enormous bravery, Moore and Matthew Modine have a Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?-style showdown, where all of the secrets in their relationship are revealed.

Certainly, I could spend all day talking about specific scenes within this movie. It's hard to imagine anybody else making this film as perfectly as Altman did. Under someone else's watch, this could have been a mess of convoluted themes and overdrawn performances. What Altman does that is interesting, is he says shutzpah to thematic storytelling, and forces the audience to think about the characters' actions. Look at what they do, don't think about why they do it, and let yourself drown in the great acting and storytelling.

Trailer Watch: Shutter Island

Hmm, kind of interesting route that Scorsese is going here. In terms of Oscar, Scorsese is 3/3 with his films this decade (Gangs of New York, The Aviator, and the big winner The Departed). This is Marty's fourth consecutive collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio, and for the most part, the results have been good. This film leans a little more towards horror and suspense than what we're used to with Scorsese, but with a cast that includes Leo, Mark Ruffalo, Emily Mortimer, Ben Kingsley, Michelle Williams, and Max von Sydow (!), this is certainly a film to watch.

Shameless Promotion

If you're like me, and are equally as nutty about basketball as you are about movies, check out my Another Boring NBA Blog...

Finals analysis and other stories involving the NBA.