Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (***1/2)

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I
Directed by David Yates

***1/2

It's weird to tag on to a phenomenon as late as I have with the Harry Potter films. Only within the last twelve months have I seen all the films that came before this year's Deathly Hallows Part I, and for the first time I've come to realize what all the fuss was about. It's easy to dismiss the decision to break up the last story of the series into two parts as shrewd money laundering by greedy studio heads who look to squeeze as much as they can from enthusiastic Potter maniacs (and - still waiting on the second half - you could still make that assumption if you well wish). I wouldn't go that far, since it's obvious that the splitting into two parts has allowed a dedication to J.K. Rowling's prose that was not in any of the previous Harry Potter films.

Things are about as dark as ever for Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his pals Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). The Ministry of Magic, as well as Hogwarts School of Magic, have been taken over by Voldemort and his band of dark magic minions. In a cryptic meeting led by Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), the Ministry of Magic discuss their main goal: find and kill Harry Potter. More specifically, Voldemort wishes to finish off Harry himself. We can only guess how much bad karma Harry has built up amongst these people, as Voldemort goes as low as to snap Lucious Malfoy's wand in half during the tempestuous discussion. He's not messing around this time.

As for Harry, he's finally been abandoned by his burdensome muggle family, the Dursleys, and sits in fear of returning to his world of magic since everyone there either hopes to kill him, or report him to the Ministry to be killed. But then the group of the usual suspects - including Ron & Hermione, as well as Hagrid (Eddie Coltrane), Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson), and the rambunctious Weasley twins (James & Oliver Phelps) - come to Harry's muggle home and decide to escort him on the very dangerous journey through the menacing Death Eaters on their way to the wizarding world. Their trip is quite the tumultuous one when the Death Eaters are tipped off about their arrival and not everyone makes it across free of scars.

With Dumbledore (Michael Gambon, appearing occasionally in flashbacks) out of the picture, the three young wizards drop out of Hogwarts while Harry plots as to how to destroy the remaining Horcruxes and bring down Voldemort's newly established reign of power. When Death Eaters attack the wedding of one of the Weasley sons, the three take a port key into an isolated wilderness where they can hide away and further plan how they can find and destroy the Horcruxes. They discover that they must find the lost sword of Gryffindor to destroy them, but drama bubbles between the three (as they are now mature young adults) as they bicker amongst themselves and have frightening meetings with Death Eaters that come across their path.

I'm not totally sure how much a non-obsessive Potter fan could appreciate Deathly Hallows Part I. The film totally ignores anyone who may be introducing themselves to the series, listing off characters at the film's start with lightning rapidity. But I guess if you decide to start following a film series on the seventh film, confusion is what you deserve. As we trudge toward the end, Deathly Hallows Part I is a methodical film that moves drearily, as if it knows that it has an entire second movie to fall back on. That being said, it is incredibly dense and has an attention to detail that no other Potter film has been able to approach before. Say what you will about dividing the final chapter, it allows them to make very careful storytelling decisions that lead to some compelling revelations of character.

As the story has unfolded, the Potter tale has gotten darker and darker with each film, and Deathly Hallows Part I continues that trend (one could only hope that the second part coming up in July of 2011 isn't just thirty minutes of action followed by a Lord of the Rings style epilogue of joyous family making). Aside from the dangerous trip to the wizarding world at the start, we have snake attacks, knife-wielding witches, and the unexpected ends of certain characters that seemed invincible. More then anything, it's emotional pull stings hard, as the relationship between Harry and his two friends reach all types of awkwardness (including a **SPOILER ALERT** CGI make session between Harry and Hermione, which, while passionate, is a lot more innocent then it sounds).

I could probably fill this entire review just by naming all of the magnificent English actors who appear in the Harry Potter series - many of which are in this film. Helena Bonham Carter, Bill Nighy, John Hurt, and Timothy Spall, just to name a few I haven't already mentioned (and let's not forget Richard Harris, who would have certainly reprised his role as Dumbledore, had he not died after the second film). But it's the performances of Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint that really stand out here. The young movie stars always had moments amateurism in their performances as the three wizards in training. Of course, it doesn't helped that they were surrounded by a superfluous amount of veteran acting talent, but that problem doesn't present itself here. It seems their talents have fully bloomed finally and their comfort level with the characters at this points allow their acting to flourish. One things that should be mentioned: the continued superb work from Ralph Fiennes as the one who should not be named, really giving the noseless beast a vicious cadence that can occasionally come off as charming.

After Part II is released next summer, it'll be strange to think that the decade of Potter has finally come to an end. The books have been finished for a great while, but it's almost uncanny how much the films themselves have evolved over the last ten years. Deathly Hallows Part I does not have the unbridled thrills of 2004's The Prisoner of Azakaban, nor does it possess the overlying gravitas of 2005's Goblet of Fire. But it does contain the heavy burden of being the final piece of this story, and it takes that responsibility very seriously. I would say with great confidence that splitting Deathly Hallows in two was a great storytelling decision (whether or not that was the true inspiration for the split, once again, is up to you), and a decision that Peter Jackson should have thought of when making Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. There's a lot of story to be told here, and this ensures that no Potter fans will miss an ounce of it.

Blog Update

Totally realize I have been completely absent for over a month. Busy times. Haven't had a chance to see a single movie. But that should be changing very soon, especially with some of the better, more anticipated films of the year looking to come out in the next few months. At the very least, expect some reviews to come soon. Starting with the new Harry Potter film, I will soon get the chance to see Fair Game, Somewhere, and 127 Hours. Thanks readers!

Waiting For 'Superman' (**1/2)

WAITING FOR 'SUPERMAN'
Directed by Davis Guggenheim

**1/2

I grew up in a suburb outside of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and spent my entire education in a public school system that I was convinced was teaching me close to nothing. I graduated from McArthur High School in the Class of 2007, in which only thirty-two percent of the seniors actually were able to pass and get their diploma on time. I'm currently a senior at the University of Central Florida, and according to the new documentary Waiting For 'Superman', this makes me a statistical marvel. The film takes aim at the American public school system and exposes some grave gaps in the institutions that teach our children and presents very poignant examples of children and families that are bucked by the system. It also gives us a bevy of information that pushes a specific agenda led by good teachers.

The film begins with its director, Davis Guggenheim, talking about he film he made in 1999, entitled The First Year, which chronicled the year of three dedicated public school teachers in an attempt to prove the values of the American public school system. But these days, with his own children, he fears placing them in mediocre schools with dilapidated buildings and sub-par teachers. He'd rather shell out the extra cash to put them in a private school and secure that their education is first-rate. But how did his ideals change so drastically? As a man who preached the value of public school, how could he not practice his own sermon? Guggenheim explains that he has the advantage of having the choice, and in Waiting For 'Superman', he attempts to show the stories of families that aren't so lucky.

We see three children and their families. All of them come from disadvantaged neighborhoods, and all three kids have parents or grandparents who have trouble raising money just to put food on the table, let alone take their children to a private school. They seem doomed to a public school system that pushes less then intelligent students early on without proper attention, and allows them to fester once they get to the tougher grade levels. There is one hope, though, and that is the publically financed, but independently owned charter schools that rank amongst the best schools in their respective districts. Because these charter schools are high in demand, there are not enough open spaces for all the applicants, and students are chosen not by performance, but by a random lottery.

At the end of the film, we watch five separate children as their academic lives are held by the random sequence of either a lottery ball or Tupperware box filled with names or a computer that picks names through an equation. It's the emotional high-point of the film, if only because we know that its a documentary and the happy ending isn't confirmed like it is in narrative films. We become relatively close to these children throughout the film, and it seems almost humiliating that their opportunity for getting into a good school is showcased by a public display that is guaranteed to send close to all the families home disappointed. Should being able to attend a good school be this difficult? Why are the odds be so stacked against lower-income families? These are the various questions that Guggenheim attempts to address in his film.

Much like Guggenheim's 2006 Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, the filmmaker is able to show us a plethora of graphs and statistics to prove how disfigured our public school system is. When giving us a stat that says over sixty percent of high school dropouts end up in prison, he also summizes that simply sending that same sixty-percent to a better school for four years and giving them a proper education would not only be better for society, but it would save over $100,000 in government money. Now, I'm not crazy about the concept that all high school dropouts are going to prison (we have tons of evidence that shows otherwise), or that any criminal given a proper education can be rehabilitated, but some of the statistics that we are shown are flabbergasting.

We are shown interviews with various interviews with education bureaucrats, including Michelle Rhee, the public school Chancellor of Washington, D.C. - one of the worst counties in the country for education. She made news by closing twenty-three schools and firing nineteen principals, and while her radical methods were heavily criticized at first, but slowly her ideas were adopted and D.C. students are slowly getting better educations. We also hear from Geoffrey Canada, a pioneer for the idea of charter schools. He's established 'Kipp Academy' schools across the country, usually in the poorer neighborhoods in the country. Canada's love for teaching and children is obvious and infectious, and though the charters are forced by government law to accept students via random lotteries, basic stats show that students going to these independently run charters are getting exceptionally better grades.

One thing is obvious to everyone inside the film and outside the film: what makes a school work is good, passionate teachers. As Canada explains, a great teacher is as rare as a professional athlete; it needs dedication, work, and consistency. Too often, Guggenheim's film takes aim at the Teacher's Union for sticking up for mediocre teachers and public school tenure (isn't that what a union is for?), instead of adopting Canada's line of thinking. Not that teachers can't be blamed, since I know first hand that a bad teacher's damage could be irreversible. I'm just not in agreement with the idea that breaking the strong Teacher's Union holds the key to making public schools better. Too much of Waiting For 'Superman' shows teachers slacking off, waiting for tenure, and then taking it easy. Not nearly enough time is shown of good teachers working hard for their students, who not only earn their tenure, but continue to work hard after they get it.

If we're looking for a sole reason as to why education has dipped in our country, one stat that Guggenheim shows us seems shine some light on it. Compared with thirty major nations across the world, we rank near the bottom in almost all school subjects. But we rank first in confidence. I guess the children of our country need a serious humbling. Guggenheim has shown his ability as a filmmaker, and Waiting For 'Superman' has some incredibly touching, occasionally crushing moments. All of that, unfortunately, has to do with the children whose hope dangles helplessly in a random process. It's when Guggenheim tries to use statistics to push his own misguided agenda where the message starts to get muddled. Schools can be better, I agree. But I went through that same system, and I came out okay.

'Blue Valentine' Gets Smashed by MPAA

I'm coming on a little late to this news on December release Blue Valentine, but seeing as the film's first trailer has just been released, I figure I can compound the two announcements. Once again, the MPAA has come out in controversial fashion when they handed the film by first-time director Derek Cianfrance an NC-17 rating. Many who've been able to see the film at festivals earlier this year have all decried this decision as erroneous and unfortunate (most of the wrath from the MPAA seems to be coming from a scene where the two characters go down on each other). If anything, it's a box office kiss of death, but that isn't a particularly big deal since I'm not sure how big the audience for this film will be to begin with. But combine that with its misguided December 31st release date, it seems like this modestly-scaled romance, with two incredibly talented young actors in Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, might get completely swallowed by the Christmas glut of more showier films like True Grit and The Fighter. More then anything, it complicates any possible path toward an Academy Award. Seeing as Cianfrance doesn't seem compelled to appeal or cut the film for a more amicable 'R' rating, I guess gold statues isn't the first thing on his mind. Which is fine, but I would have enjoyed the Oscar season a lot more, I feel, if Blue Valentine was going to be a big part of it. Well, whatever happens, the film will come out at the end of December.

**Update (10/14/10)**: The film's distributor, The Weinstein Company, has decided to appeal this rating. Here's Harvey Weinstein's statement: "We want to express our deepest gratitude to our colleagues in the industry and in the media for their recent outpouring of support for Derek Cianfrance’s Blue Valentine after the film surprisingly received an NC-17 rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. We are taking every possible step to contest the MPAA’s decision. We respect the work of the MPAA and we hope, after having a chance to sit down with them, they will see that our appeal is reasonable, and the film, which is an honest and personal portrait of a relationship, would be significantly harmed by such a rating."

Here's the first trailer of Blue Valentine:

Never Let Me Go (***1/2)

NEVER LET ME GO
Directed by Mark Romanek

***1/2

I guess I understand why the posters and trailers for Never Let Me Go try to hide the fact that it's a science fiction film. It's a genre that has become overloaded in various cliches (usually involving space ships and extra-terrestrials), and when films like this (dealing with human emotions and love) come along, it's hard to really market it successfully. There was a similar issue in 2006 with Children of Men, a sci-fi masterpiece that also dealt with more humane characters. Universal botched the marketing on its release, and though it's now considered a contemporary classic, you couldn't pay someone to see it when it first came out. I don't know if Never Let Me Go will have the same fate, but you can't blame the promotions for pushing the "We have an amazing cast!" angle. Especially when you consider that the cast includes three of the most talented and exciting English actors working today.

In Hailsham Academy during the mid-1970's, a large group of children are taught and housed in a very strict, intentional fashion. Every child is watched over by the academy's headmistress Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling) with a terse eye. They're never allowed to leave the estate or interact with any other children who may be from outside of Hailsham. Three of those children are Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth, whose intelligence seems to be higher then the rest of the students. Tommy is an outsider amongst the rest of the boys and is known for throwing wild, violent tantrums, but Kathy offers him friendship because she finds him to be a sensitive alternative to the rest of the rowdy boys and takes a liking to him. Soon after, with almost spiteful haste, Kathy's best friend Ruth offers Tommy her heart and he accepts as Kathy watches with rampant jealousy.

The children are not totally privy as to why they are holed up in at Hailsham, but when a new guardian, Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins), comes to teach their class, she becomes overwhelmed by what she has seen and spills the truth to them: they are clones created to give organs for people who may otherwise die. They are part of a medical system developed in the last century that has helped create cures for many terminal illnesses, and they will likely not even live to middle age. Immediately after stating the truth, Miss Lucy is dismissed, but Kathy, Tommy and Ruth never forget what they've learned. Later, when they're eighteen, Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Ruth (Keira Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield), are moved to The Cottages where they prepare for their lives as "donors".

By this time, Ruth and Tommy's relationship has matured sexually but not emotionally. Kathy watches them from afar, still hurt that her friend would steal her crush, but still too timid to disrupt their relationship. In The Cottages, the three learn of a rumor: if two donors can prove that they love each other, they can request a "deferment", which can give the two in love at least a few years of freedom to be together before they're sent off for surgeries. Ruth and Tommy seem genuinely interested in the idea, but Kathy has grown weary thinking of their future and applies to become a "carer", which is someone who looks after the donors as they depreciate during their surgeries. But being a carer doesn't totally dismiss your donor responsibility. It only postpones it, and Kathy begins to see if she can find a way to experience this "deferment" she'd heard of, before she loses her chance.

The film is based on the acclaimed novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. Like the film, the book is broken into three equal parts: the Hailsham childhood years, the teenage years at The Cottages, and lastly, the adult years before "completion". I'm not sure how much the film benefits from having such a strict adherence to the source material's structure. The film's few pace issues could have been solved by shaving quite a bit off of the first segment. But then again, I've never been a fan of the thirty-minute childhood prologue (which explains my distaste for the 1996 film Shine), so this could be just a matter of taste. I do think it helps my case, though, when you consider how much more exciting and interesting the last two-thirds of the film are.

A lot of that has to do with the tremendous collection of acting talent. Mulligan, Garfield, and Knightley all deliver first-rate performances and each perfectly create a distinct, nuanced character, complimenting each other exquisitely (in a fair world, both Mulligan and Knightley would be in line for Oscar nominations, but that doesn't seem like the forecast). As other films like The Island have shown, it's difficult to tell the story of a "clone", but Never Let Me Go doesn't really seem to get hung up on problems like that. Instead, the film treats them as they should be, like real people. The fact that they are not de facto people doesn't prevent screenwriter Alex Garland (also wrote the two Danny Boyle films 28 Days Later... and Sunshine) from treating them as though they are. For all the hangups I may have felt hampered the first third of the screenplay, Garland's script is incredibly absorbing, filled with just enough drama and intrigue to allow the viewer to really care.

The film was directed by Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo and more interestingly - as I found on IMDB - the music video for Michael Jackson's "Scream"), who is able to successfully pull off the balance between the sci-fi and romance elements. Any trailer would have someone figuring that Never Let Me Go was just a stuffy romantic costume drama, but it's a lot more dense then that. There are several levels of emotional turmoil here and Romanek balances all of the thematic elements pretty competently. Sure, it helps when you have Mulligan, Garfield, and Knightley to express the emotional core of your themes, but there have been other films with better casts that weren't able to generate the emotional reaction that this film does.

I can see some people seeing Never Let Me Go and being a bit disappointed with its science fiction elements. If all I knew about the film was from the trailer, I would have figured it to be a well-cast period romance. Not that the film isn't a period romance, but when you bring any kind of clone into the mix, you're bound to trigger certain prejudices from the audience. Whatever category you may try to shoehorn the film into being, it succeeds because it deftly defies both romance and science fiction. It carries various aspects of genre while being earnest enough to rise above it. The best way to break away from genre pitfalls is to make sure that the characters come first, and Never Let Me Go makes sure that they're telling a story about people - well, kind of.

Buried (***)

BURIED
Directed by Rodrigo Cortés

***

It takes some serious sack to pull off a film like Buried. On the surface, it just seems like a giant, suspense film gimmick - even its throwback poster seems more like homage then actual serious filmmaking. An entire film taking place in a claustrophobic coffin, and all we see is one man with a lighter, a flashlight, and a cell phone. Doesn't seem like it works, but it does here, thanks to a great performance from Ryan Reynolds and creative, at times innovative work from director Rodrigo Cortés, cinematographer Eduard Grau, and music composer Victor Reyes.

The plot is deceptively simple. Paul Conroy (Reynolds) is an American contractor working in Iraq in 2006. He wakes up in a wooden coffin, with only inches of space in each direction. He's bound and gagged, but he's able to get out of them pretty quickly and effortlessly. All he has is his zippo lighter to light the inside. He tries to punch and fight his way out at first, but he recognizes rather soon that all of that is futile. He begins to notice small grains of sand seeping through the cracks in the wood, and he realizes that he's underground. The stress of it causes him to have an explosion of hysteria, while attempting more pointless escape attempts.

But the story kicks in when he notices a cell phone ringing by his feet. He kicks the phone up to his head and begins calling various people: his wife, his boss, the FBI. Occasionally, he's able to speak to someone who can offer him very little help. More often, he's only able to get someone's voice mail, leaving panicked messages without a contact number. He gets a call from an Iraqi man demanding $5 million in less than two hours in order to get him out and Paul scrambles to see how he can accomplish that. He begins talking to another man who's responsible for rescuing hostages overseas, but this man says that there is no negotiating with terrorists. Paul's paranoia begins to grow as Brenner searches for him unsuccessfully and Jabir continues to give him threatening phone calls.

A movie like this only works if you get a virtuoso performance from your lead actor, and that's exactly what Buried gets from Ryan Reynolds. I highly doubt that Reynolds spent the entirety of filming in a tiny wooden coffin, but watching the film you would think that he has. His performance encompasses high anxiety and yet has a stubborn wherewithal to keep you interested for an hour and a half. We understand his flare-ups and empathize with his occasional lack of tact. I've always liked Reynolds despite his penchant for making films (Smokin' Aces, Blade Trinity, and Van Wilder) that I've thought were way below his talent level. But for anyone who's watched those performances have known that he's capable of greatness, and Buried is the first time we've seen that potential materialize.

Now, to be fair, this film is an actor's dream; it's a film totally dependent on your performance, and if you nail it, then you're bound to create something tremendous. It's easy to get caught up in the gimmick of the coffin, but you would never buy into it if Reynolds wasn't as good as he is. Not that the director, Cortés, is not just as exceptional. As hard as it may seem to act inside a coffin the size of a pillbox, I imagine it would be just as hard to direct a film inside of one. The film sits at 95 minutes and it doesn't feel a second longer. With the help of cinematographer Eduard Grau, Cortés keeps the film moving both figuratively and literally. We are so far into Paul Conroy's point of view, that we ourselves feel the time ticking away, all the while still aware of the inventive shots that are spread throughout the film.

Cortés is careful to recognize his influences, as Alfred Hitchcock's fingerprints lay all over this film. Everything from the descending/ascending title sequence, to the manic Psycho-like score by Victor Reyes. While I'd never compare Buried to Vertigo or Rear Window anytime soon, I don't think Hitchcock ever visualized claustrophobia and panic as well as it's done here. It is really a brilliant display of suspense, since it never allows itself to relax. Even in its slower, more precise moments (a scene where Paul calls his Dementia-afflicted mother is particularly effective), the constant mania of the situation is always apparent and driving the film in a solid forward movement.

It's hard to write a lot about a film that has essentially one actual scene. But it may seem strange that after praising the film as mush as I have, that I only gave it three stars. Well, I have a very deliberate reason for that. SPOILER ALERT: This film would be damn near perfect if it weren't marred by a final three minutes that is more cruel to its audience then anything else I've ever seen. I don't mind somber endings, but when a filmmaker goes out of his way to manipulate the viewers' emotions for little more then his own amusement I simply get upset. I enjoyed the first eighty-five minutes of Buried more then I enjoyed most films that I've seen this year. I did not like the ending. That's right, I didn't like it that much.

Catfish (****)

CATFISH
Directed by Ariel Schulman & Henry Joost

****

As much as I loved The Social Network, there was an aspect of the film that I felt was missing. It's not a film's fault if it doesn't address the concepts that I wanted it to address, but it can cause a viewer to feel a bit empty when you hope for something that never comes. I was hoping the film would discuss the more dangerous aspects of Facebook, its leading to the downfall of true identity. Secret lives are now created all over the internet, using various Facebook-like social networking sites. We delude ourselves into thinking that we know more people then ever before, but the quality of our "knowing" has now depreciated because of Facebook, and I hoped that the "Facebook movie" would ponder a bit on that. Instead, we got a film about a young man trying to find a way to impress and win back a girl he briefly dated. And that film was exceptional, even though it wasn't what I wanted. Catfish, on the other hand, gave me exactly what I asked for.

**Before I write anything, I should probably say that most of the charm of Catfish comes from the absolute shock of the events that unfold. The more you know about the elements behind it, the less the film will reach its fullest effect. So, I feel its my responsibility to tell you that if you plan on going to see the film and truly enjoy it, you should go in with a blank slate. This may mean that my review here may be detrimental to that. I'll do my best to avoid spoilers that could harm the intended reaction of the film, but if you are spoiler-phobic (and there are many of you), feel free to leave now and come back after you've seen the film so we can discuss.** Now, that the housekeeping is finished, I'll continue.

When photographer Yaniv Schulman is sent a painting of one of his published photos by an eight-year-old painter named Abby, he's astounded by how good the work is. Yaniv and Abby begin an open correspondence over email, and Abby begins sending him numerous painted copies of his photographs. This captures the eye of filmmakers Ariel Schulman (Yaniv's older brother) and Henry Joost, and they decide to film Yaniv as his relationship with the young girl begins to blossom. They film as Yaniv keeps getting paintings, but then Yaniv gets a chance to speak to Abby's mother Angela, who is just as surprised as everyone else with her daughter's brilliant gift in art. Yaniv becomes friends with Angela on Facebook.

As Yaniv continues his transactions with Abby, he gets deeper into her family. On Facebook, he becomes friends with Abby's father Vince, her brother Ryan and several other cousins and family friends, including her half-sister Megan. Megan sends Yaniv personal messages thanking him for his interest in her little sister, and soon she is actually sending him flirtatious text messages and having long conversations with him over the phone. But (for reasons I won't explain here) Megan's actions begin to become more and more suspicious, leaving Yaniv, Ariel and Henry to question the peculiar nature of this cyber-family. Frustrated and confused, Yaniv takes Ariel and Henry with him to Abby's home in Michigan to confront Megan and Angela on their strange behavior. What they uncover upon their arrival is something that is as astonishing as it is heartbreaking, proving how little they knew about Abby's family after all.

We live in a climate of cynicism, and in the era of Joaquin Phoenix's disastrous coup I'm Still Here, that cynicism has spilled into the world of documentary cinema. But whether or not Catfish really is 100% legitimate doesn't really effect my response to the film, because what it says about our society is incredibly potent and effective either way. As The Social Network explains expertly, all of Facebook's popularity is based upon people trying to get closer to other people they're sexually attracted to. It's voyeurism that's legal because we put ourselves out there to be spied on. There are people who live their entire lives on Facebook, but there is also a more ominous minority, whose lives are Facebook. Catfish is about that minority, and the dangerous nature of developing relationships with people within that minority. You never know what's going to come out in reality.

I could probably praise the filmmaking of Schulman and Joost, but what's great about Catfish has very little to do with them. If anything, the film does a good job of showing that their fear came very close to sabotaging their own uncovering. It's the people in front of the camera that really fascinate us. As I sat in the theater, there were many people who chuckled at some of the experiences in the film. This was not an indulged laughter coming from something funny in the movie, but a chuckle bubbling up from a brewing storm of discomfort welling inside of them. Facebook has totally sucked in most of the country (and, I can only assume, a lot of the world), and a lot of the attraction comes from the ability to act cryptically in a way that we haven't been allowed to before. I've got a feeling that more people can relate to Yaniv's complex online relationship than I'd like to think about.

I really feel that documentary cinema has been at its peak in the last decade, thanks to guys like Michael Moore, Alex Gibney, and Charles Ferguson, who have imbued the usually sterile genre with real heart, passion and (that dirty word) bias. This film was produced by Andrew Jarecki, the man behind one of the greatest documentaries I've ever seen, Capturing The Friedmans, that excelled because it repelled the oncoming style of making documentaries more cinematic. In Alex Gibney's and Michael Moore's films, they are the stars. In Catfish and Friedmans, their subjects are the stars, and their lives are so interesting and at times depraved and shocking. Closer to Terry Zwigoff's masterpiece Crumb. Now, I won't go as far as to call Catfish a masterpiece, since there are times when it takes its own technological wrinkle and overexposes its own cuteness. But it is relevant and it is good. I think more people will go see Catfish as opposed to most documentaries, but I'm not sure too many will learn the lesson. That lesson that was missing in The Social Network.

Let Me In (***1/2)

LET ME IN
Written for the Screen and Directed by Matt Reeves

***1/2

When I saw the 2008 Swedish film Let The Right One In, I was blown away. This doesn't happen to me often when it comes to horror films - particularly ones about vampires. So, there was some trepidation when I first heard that there would be an American remake. With the Twilight craze at the multiplexes and the HBO show True Blood becoming a huge success on television, it would be so easy to take the modest brilliance of the first film and turn it into another lazy horror romance (with the blatant sexuality of True Blood mixed with the chaste, teasing nature of Twilight, I think they've essentially maxed out their audience with vampire films). Luckily for fans of the original Swedish film, Let Me In is a faithful remake that compliments itself and the original quite exquisitely.

All the same plot points are there: Owen (The Road's Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a fragile, soft-spoken young man, who lives alone with his pious, alcoholic mother (Cara Buono). His parents are going through a tumultuous divorce, and his mother doesn't even allow him to speak to his father. Owen's only outlets seem to be Now and Later candies, and putting on ominous masks while having fantasies of being a threatening, violent figure - stabbing trees with pocket knives, pretending their little girls. At school, he's tormented by a troubled bully (Dylan Minnette) who originally teases with innocent pranks in class, but quickly escalates to atomic wedgies and threats of further violence.

When Owen notices that he has new neighbors in the apartment next door, he quietly investigates from his window. He sees a young girl, walking in the snow with no shoes on, her eyes on the ground, looking inconspicuous. She's accompanied by a much older man (Richard Jenkins), who could only reasonably be her father. As Owen plays in the courtyard of his complex, playing out another one of his sadistic fantasies, he is visited by the shoeless young girl. Her name is Abby (Chloe Moretz, of Kick-Ass and 500 Days of Summer fame). She tells Owen almost immediately that she cannot be his friend, but she instantly intrigues him. When they meet again on the courtyard, he gives her a Rubik's Cube as a gift, and she solves it in one night.

The relationship between Owen and Abby grows quickly. He takes her to play video games in the local grocery store and he tries to buy her Now and Laters, but she declines. He doesn't ask her many questions about why she doesn't go to school or go out during the day, or about her mysterious father who takes suspicious trips out in the middle of the night. He just knows that he likes her very much, and soon, Abby shares his feelings. But as they become closer, Abby's real identity becomes clearer. She lives on human blood. When she doesn't seek out people to kill and suck out their blood, she asks her "father" to go out and murder men to drain out the blood for her. It becomes clear that Abby and her "father" (as we learn soon, it's actually her former lover now grown much older than her stunted age of 12) are responsible for a string of brutal murders in the city.

As a remake, Let Me In works because it's just close enough to the original to please fans of the 2008 version, but all its subtle changes actually improve the film. Not that Let Me In is better then Let The Right One In - I find it silly to compare the two since both are exceptional. I simply find them high-quality companion pieces. It's obvious that writer-director Matt Reeves (director of Cloverfield) is not interested in simply taking a successful foreign film and transforming it into his own. Instead, Reeves makes an almost identical film that pays homage to the original while also exposing American audiences to a film that they probably have never gotten around to seeing. If anything positive happens, let's hope its that more American moviegoers go back and watch the 2008 Swedish film. Because Let Me In is so delicate in its retelling, it doesn't feel like the fraudulence of Gus van Sant's version of Psycho or Michael Haneke's ill-conceived remake of his own film Funny Games.

But enough about Let The Right One In. Matt Reeve's film has many things that stand on its own. The performances of Smit-McPhee and Moretz are both satisfying in ways that help us understand their unorthodox romance. The film plays with that wobbling balance of innocence and sexuality. We're not chastised here the way we are with Twilight, that likes the idea of goading its audience with beautiful people on the screen. Instead, we are shown the bright insecurity of childhood, whether it be the need to experience love before we're ready to comprehend it or the chronic fear of bullying in middle school hallways. Few times has childhood been shown more accurately then here, capturing children's feverish fantasies and suppressed, misguided perversions.

It also works well as a suspense. Sure, I could call it Hitchcockian, but the more appropriate allusion is to early Polanski and the Stanley Kubrick of The Shining. With a subplot involving a dedicated police detective (played by a bespeckled Elias Koteas) searching for the people responsible for the gruesome murders, there is an interesting undercurrent of menace. We empathize with Abby for the entire film, because we can reconcile her addiction. But that does not mean that we shy away from her more ghastly characteristics. Based only on my memory, Let Me In seemed to be a lot more bloody and grisly then the original, but it doesn't feel like a remake's gluttonous revamping, but more like what the original would have done, had their budget been a bit more amiable.

It's a shame that this will be released within the vacuum of vampire mania, since most audiences may dismiss it as just one of many. It cuts deeper then the conflicts of most vampire flicks, treating vampirism more like an affliction. No sparkling in the daylight or abrasive sex covered in other people's guts, but a need for blood that matches a junkie's need for heroin. As I said before, I had my reservations when I heard Let The Right One In was going to be Americanized, but having seen it, I'm glad it has happen. I'm always happy to see a superior film in theaters, especially at a time when studios are trying less and less. But it's an American film that notices how evolved European films appear to be, and gives them credit. I like to see that modesty every now and then.

The Social Network (***1/2)

THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Directed by David Fincher

***1/2

It happened in a moment. But when it did, it was irreversible. Eight years ago, nobody knew what Facebook was. Today, for all young people, a world without Facebook seems like a world without television or Oxygen (for some). When a cultural phenomena sparks and flies as quickly as Facebook has this past decade, it seems almost inevitable that there would be a film made about it. Leave it to David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin to take this concept and develop it into a film that is fully engrossing and entertaining, even if it does lack a plentiful amount of information and facts.

The popular site was started by Mark Zuckerberg who, in this film, is a very sarcastic, defiant persona embodied by Jesse Eisenberg. We learn very early that he is involved in two very serious, very expensive lawsuits - one against his best friend. But the creation of Facebook begins well before all that, when he is a student at Harvard. He has just been dumped mercilessly by his girlfriend Emily (Rooney Mara). Afterward, he is inspired to go on a late night bender, developing a website that takes a photo of every girl in the school and asks you to compare "who is hotter?". He hacks into the school's database to get the pictures of every girl on campus and gets the site into the Harvard internet server, all while blogging about it relentlessly and being drunk on beer. By four o'clock in the morning, the site has gotten so many hits in that one night that it overloads the entire internet server and it crashes down.

Embarrassed and shocked that Mark defeated their internet security system so easily, the Harvard AD board put Mark on academic probation for six months. By that time, though, his name has become synonymous with infamy across campus and he catches the eye of the wealthy, pro-rowing brothers Cameron Winklevoss (Armie Hammer) and Tyler Winklevoss (Josh Pence). They approach him with the idea for a Harvard social networking site. When Mark asks why it is different from other sites like MySpace or Friendster, they reply with the magic word: exclusivity. Mark agrees to join the project, and asks his best friend Eduardo (Andrew Garfield) to put up the money for the development process and be the business manager. Of course, Mark doesn't mention the Winklevosses to Eduardo and as Mark's rapid development of "The Facebook" gets more and more sophisticated (relationship statuses, photo collections, The Wall), he decides to launch the site on his own.

Very quickly, the site grows throughout Harvard and the Winklevosses are understandably indignant that Mark would take their idea and go forward with it on his own. Mark says that they only offered him the concept, but he is the one who really invented Facebook. When Eduardo learns of the Winklevosses, he's distressed to find that their idea may not have been completely original. Facebook begins to expand to universities across the country, including Stanford, where it's discovered by Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake). When Sean meets with them, he woos them with ideas of complete expansion and becoming billionaires. But as Sean's influence becomes bigger and bigger, Eduardo's becomes smaller and smaller until it is nearly nonexistent. Just as the the site's popularity is reaching its apex, Mark is being sued by both Eduardo and the Winklevosses for tens of millions of dollars.

The film is an adaptation of the book "The Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich, which is well-known to be rooted almost entirely in fiction. Zuckerberg himself has spoken out against the film, and who could blame him; it certainly paints him as narcissistic and sleazy. In many ways, this is a film truly about Mark trying to become less of an asshole, except that he never succeeds (in other words: if I were Zuckerberg, I'm not sure I'd be the biggest fan either). The book was adapted by Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame, and he turns this tale into a rapidly-paced travel through the renaissance of social media that was Facebook. Sorkin does an impeccable job of keeping the pace moving and the dialogue sharp, so that we're never overwhelmed by the avalanche of technological and legal jargon that the film shoves down our throat throughout.

Surely, there are many moments when the film wants to have it both ways: to be a formal piece of historical fiction and a witty retelling with clever showcases of pithy dialogue. Throughout the entire movie, I was struck by this one realization: I'm not sure the world within this film really exists. Sure, it would be amazing if it did, I'd like to see twin brothers like the Winklevosses speak in rhythmic patterns of repartee. Everyone in this universe seems like a professional humorist - even the Dean of Harvard is a master of quick-witted banter. That said, this is probably the greatest film that Sorkin has ever written (also penned Charlie Wilson's War, An American President, and A Few Good Men), since he has finally allowed his Mamet-like skills with dialogue and pace to be part of a film that can actually employ it effectively. He's no longer forced to bog down his style with political intrigue, but instead is set free in a way that has never been seen and what follows is a stupendous display of dialogue.

And those words are put into some very capable, young actors that deliver this script in a very proficient and effective way. Jesse Eisenberg, in playing Zuckerberg, shows once again his uncanny ability to pick roles that he'll be good at. After Zombieland and how big this film is sure to be, he should finally be the nebbish, alternative movie star we've been waiting for since Woody Allen decided to stop acting. Rashida Jones, Brenda Song, as well as Garfield, Hammer, Pence, and Mara, all give exceptional supporting performances. But the key performance to this excellent film is Justin Timberlake (a sentence I never thought I'd write on this blog). Out of everyone, Timberlake is the only actor who perfectly understands Sorkin's cross between snarky shrewdness and human drama, and his scenes are the most vibrant and exciting. Yeah, I'm talking about that Justin Timberlake.

On the David Fincher scale, The Social Network is a whole lot closer to the brilliant Se7en and Zodiac then it is to the overblown, overwrought, overrated Fight Club and Curious Case of Benjamin Button. There are very few filmmakers that make me fluster violently from one direction to the other. For one, there is no one better at showing his own polish. The Social Network may be the most stylish film that we see all year, with cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth making the bronze-like tone throughout the film seem particularly slick. All things considered, he's become very important in the filmmaking community and all of his movies have become like sponsored events. This film especially, since it has the gall to tackle the most popular website in the short, but illustrious history of the internet. I think Fincher puts a lot of stock in being perceived as an "important filmmaker", and while it can sometimes lead to the grandiose ejaculation of ego that was Benjamin Button, it can sometimes produce films as likable as this one.

I don't think this film will let down the young crowd of Facebookers, since it moves briskly and is filled with humor that is both smart and broad. I do wonder why this film chose to go in a direction which everyone involved has said is completely untrue. This would be more forgivable if the film really took any kind of stance on Facebook itself and commented on its monolithic effect on today's culture and society, but there is very little in the way of parable or argument. But whether or not this movie is a true collection of events leading to the creation of Facebook seems to be besides the point, since if social media has proven anything, it's this: the most interesting version of the story will end up becoming the truest version of the story.

Tony Curtis (1925-2010)

At the age of 85, Tony Curtis has left us. Known mostly for being Janet Leigh's husband and Jamie Lee Curtis' father, but Curtis' acting career was on of distinction as well. Sure, he was not the talent of a Robert Mitchum or Marlon Brando. His performances in The Defiant Ones, Spartacus and Sweet Smell of Success were not the central roles, but they added much more to those successful films with great wit and his incessant need to never play it safe. There were many actors who were better then Curtis, but few as unique. Known mostly for his performance in the Billy Wilder hit Some Like It Hot, here's my favorite clip of him from that film...

Top Ten: Coen Brothers

Haven't done this in a while. An ol' fashioned Top Ten list. The subject this time around? The Coen Brothers. In celebration of the premiere of the teaser trailer for their new film, True Grit. The original John Wayne film from 1969 is one of my least favorite Westerns ever, but I've been slowly talking myself into this one. Especially after getting this (admittedly short) peak, which includes a scruffy Jeff Bridges (some shades of The Dude? We'll hear more about him in a little bit), a shooting Matt Damon, and glimpses of a feisty performance from newcomer Hattie Steinfeld. We've heard that the Joel and Ethan are much more interested in adapting the 1968 Charles Portis novel then remaking the Oscar-winning film - which is hopeful. But enough about True Grit, let's take a look back at the entire Coen Brothers catalogue and countdown their Top Ten films.

10. The Ladykillers (2004)

Most Coen fans consider this comedy caper the worst of their fourteen feature films, but even saying that, there are few who would admit that they are not overcome by the film's infectious absurdity. A remake of the Peter Sellers 1955 comedy of the same name, it follows a zany collection of criminals led by Prof. G.H. Dorr (Tom Hanks), and including a demolition man with irritable bowel syndrome (J.K. Simmons) and a loudmouth petty thief (Marlon Wayans). Posing as a Christian music band, they hide out in the basement of a pious, gregarious woman named Marva (Irma P. Hall). Containing one of Hanks' most delicious comedic performances, The Ladykillers has some of the biggest laughs in the Coens' illustrious comedic history. While the film keeps the silliness of the original, there is still the Coen touch of peculiarity and quirk, leading to a conclusion that is as hysterical as it is anarchistic. Another piece of trivia: this is the only Coen Brothers film where they had nothing to do in the writing of the screenplay.

9. The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)

This is by far the sweetest Coen brothers film, with many classifying it as a children's film ("You know, for kids!"). When the president of a manufacturing company jumps out the window of the top floor of a forty-five story building, the scheming vice president (Paul Newman) decides to hire a dunce to replace him to drive down the stock so he can it up cheap. He hires the exceptionally idealistic Norville Barnes (Tim Robbins) who takes to his job quickly, even with fast-talking undercover reporter Amy Archer (Jennifer Jason Leigh) out to expose him. With open references to the screwball comedies of Preston Sturgess and Frank Capra, The Hudsucker Proxy is the Coens' most heartfelt love song (they prefer saluting the screwballs and film noirs amongst genre, but Westerns get their fair share as well). It also contains some of the best work from film composer Carter Burwell and cinematographer Roger Deakins. It's probably the similarity to films of long ago that caused Hudsucker to be one of the Coens' biggest box office flops, but it's reputation has grown quite a bit in the decades since.

8. Miller's Crossing (1990)

If Hudsucker was a blown kiss toward 1940's romantic comedy, then Miller's Crossing was one of the least subtle winks to 1940-50's film noir. The plot is a spiraling one, focused on loner gangster Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne), whose boss and mentor Leo (Albert Finney) is having trouble keeping piece between mob boss Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito) and the brother (Jon Turturro) of his girlfriend Verna (Marcia Gay Harden). As Tom double-talks and sidesteps through all these characters in hopes to get things to turn out his way, many things go right and many other things go very, very wrong. A straight drama, Miller's Crossing is probably one of the Coens' least distinct films, with very little of their trademark oddities popping up (though their are a few here and there). Instead, they focus solely on catching the suspense and moral ambiguity of classic gangster pictures from long ago. Needless to say, like The Hudsucker Proxy, it also had its initial struggles at the box office, but today its usually held up among some of their more polished work. Also, this is their first of five collaborations with Steve Buscemi (albeit a very short one), and all of those films make the Top Ten (Oh joy!).

7. Burn After Reading (2008)

Only seven months removed from winning three Oscars for No Country For Old Men, the Coens came out with Burn After Reading, one of the funniest, but damning looks at the idiocy of American culture. The film follows an ensemble including two dim-witted gym employees (Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt), their boss (Richard Jenkins), a disgruntled, recently fired CIA man (John Malkovich) and his ornery wife (Tilda Swinton), and a charming, gun-wielding government officer with a penchant for exercise and wood flooring (George Clooney). When the gym employees get a piece of the CIA agent's memoirs, they mistake it for confidential information, and their search for retribution leads to often hilarious, often dangerous results for everyone involved. Funny in a way that's dark and brooding, Burn After Reading is probably the best dissection of Bush America that we'll ever see. It cuts a knife through our superficial values just as sharply as No Country, but it has the gaul to sunny and cheerful about it. By far, the best of the Clooney-Coen collaborations, and has what may be the best performance of Brad Pitt's career.

6. Blood Simple (1984)

As their debut film, Blood Simple really got the word out quickly about how talented these two Midwestern brothers really were. A grizzly Texas crime film, it deals with a bar owner named Marty (Dan Hedaya) whose crazy jealousy over his wife Abby (Frances McDormand) and her lover Ray (John Getz), leads him to contact a sketchy private investigator (M. Emmett Walsh) to put a scare into him. Much like other Coen films, this meticulously plotted plan goes horribly wrong because of circumstances that are far outside of the characters' control. In a lot of ways, this is a much less mature version of their masterpiece Fargo, with the elements of dark crime and bad luck so similar to the 1996 film. As their first film, its particularly impressive, considering it contains some of the most intense scenes they've ever produced. One of those scenes involving one character burying another alive, which is probably the most dastardly act a Coen character has ever perpetrated (with the noted exception of Gaear Grimsrud and his notorious woodchipper). There are lots of things in Blood Simple that seem out of the Coens' style, which is to be expected as they searched to find their voice. That said, it is still one of the best film debuts of all time.

5. Barton Fink (1991)

After Barton Fink swept up at the 1991 Cannes Film Festival (taking Best Actor for Jon Turturro, Best Director for Joel, and the highly-coveted Palme D'or), many finally started taking the Coens seriously. Before Fink, they were only thought of us stylish genre filmmakers with plenty of flash, but barren of heart. Fink was a different direction, much more existential and categorically ambiguous - inspired more by Freud then by Howard Hawks and Preston Sturgess. The follows the titular Barton (Turturro), a writer who's hot off a Broadway success and is asked to come to Los Angeles to draft a boxing picture. He dreams of writing a masterpiece about "the common man", but when he's sent to ominous Hotel Earle he can't focus. He finds all sorts of distractions in the all sorts of things, including his peeling wallpaper, the sexual moans from upstairs, and especially the constant visits from his friendly, but overbearing next door neighbor Charlie (John Goodman). Tackling various subject matter such as the "life of the mind" and poking fun at film studios (Michael Lerner's hilarious performance as studio head Jack Lipnick earned him a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination), Barton Fink was the Coen Brothers' first great film and would set the standard for every film they released after it.

4. A Serious Man (2009)

Released just last year, A Serious Man became only the third Coen film to be nominated for Best Picture (of course, it helped that they expanded the field that year to ten, but still). Described by many as being Joel and Ethan's most personal film, documenting the life of a Jewish man in 1950's American Midwest. Larry Gopnick (Michael Stuhlbarg) is having some problems: his wife has decided to leave him for the family friend Sy (Fred Melamed), his son is a pot-smoking delinquent, and his oafish brother Arthur (Richard Kind) won't get off his couch and find his own apartment. With allusions to the Book of Job, A Serious Man is unlike most Coen Brothers films, since for the first time, they allowed their characters to recruit empathy from the audience. If you could make any argument against their movies, its that their characters silly (sometimes offensive) caricatures of actual people. Not here. They want us to feel bad for Larry Gopnick. But just as they give us a place to filter our emotion, they break them down, sending Larry through a hellish journey throughout the film. It's their most audacious experiment, and was instantly considered one of the best of the Coen pantheon upon release.

3. The Big Lebowski (1998)

The Big Lebowski is certainly their most cherished film, simply because it is their best pure comedy. Following The Dude (Jeff Bridges) and his angry friend Walter (John Goodman), we see a sequence of strange characters and events that lead up to very little that makes sense or forward story progress. Instead, the film prefers to focus on its own meanderings, including an ornery millionaire (David Huddleston), his estranged step-daughter (Julianne Moore), a group techno pop nihilists, and Dude and Walter's innocent bowling partner Donnie (Steve Buscemi). It's certainly the coolest movie to spend such a quantifiable amount of time in a bowling alley, but it's also one of the greatest deconstructions of film noir ever. In a lot of ways, it's an "anti-film noir", containing many of the same plot elements of the Howard Hawks film The Big Sleep. But instead of a grizzled, go-getter protagonist, we're left with The Dude - a man who actively avoids all kinds of conflict. Which is why The Big Lebowski is such an incredible watch: it's a delightfully ridiculous comedy on the surface, while being a stinging comment on cinema below the surface. And let's not forget one of the greatest uses of Kenny Rogers' "Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)".

2. No Country For Old Men (2007)

After The Ladykillers was declared by many to be their worst effort, some thought that maybe the Coens' days as the wonderful oddities of cinema were numbered. So, after three years of nothing, they finally came out with their adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel No Country For Old Men. The story is about Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a streetwise Texas hunter who comes across a maximum drug deal gone wrong. All he sees are dead bodies, mountains of heroin, and a satchel with $2 million, so he takes the money and runs with it. This gets the amoral bounty hunter Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) on his trail. Anton is a killing machine, who works in a very mechanical way and never leaves evidence behind. But Anton does have grizzled, downtrodden Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) following him, hoping to find the two men before a blood path ensues. As a grim metaphor for American society, No Country is scary in its foreboding foresight of an unstoppable evil in our country's future. As a thriller, the film pulsates with suspense, thanks to the brilliant work of the Coens, as well as veteran cinematographer Roger Deakins and career-best work from sound editor Skip Lievsay (neither Lievsay nor Deakins won the Oscar that year, in one of the more egregious look-overs of the ceremony). It is the first Coen Brothers film to win the Oscar for Best Picture, and likely to be the only one. Lightning doesn't strike twice.

1. Fargo (1996)

If you're going to be considered a seminal filmmaker, you usually have to have at least two legitimate masterpieces. Scorsese has Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. Woody Allen has Annie Hall and Crimes and Misdemeanors. Billy Wilder has Sunset Boulevard and The Apartment. No Country For Old Men was their second masterpiece cementing them in the pantheon in great American filmmakers. Fargo was their first, and their best. A dark comedy about a deeply indebted car salesman (William H. Macy) who hires two slimy criminals (Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare) to kidnap his wife, so he can split the hefty ransom money that will come from his well-off father-in-law (Harve Presnell). What they don't expect is the smart eye of Police Chief Marge Gunderson (France McDormand in an Oscar winning performance) who is still the best officer in her district despite being six months pregnant. Part dissection of small town America, part meditation on good vs. evil, Fargo is easily the Coen Brothers greatest film and one of the greatest films of all time. The lovable Marge is easily the best character that the Coens have ever crafted, but its her placement in the world of this film that is fascinating. She represents everything that is good, and the Coens have her face off against the ultimate evil manifested by Buscemi and Stormare. Though Marge wins, the mood at the end is ambiguous. In a lot of ways, in contains some of the same warnings in No Country, but it's less angry and more hopeful. More funny and less downtrodden. It's quietly delightful in its comedy, and brutally shocking with its violence. It's one of the most well-rounded films ever. And it also has Peter Stormare throwing Steve Buscemi in a woodchipper, and who doesn't love that?

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (**1/2)

WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS
Directed by Oliver Stone

**1/2

When Gordon Gekko first appeared in 1987's Wall Street, his silky charm mixed with his snake-like, coldblooded nature fascinated audiences to the tune of an Academy Award for Michael Douglas, the man who played the infamous Gekko like Pat Riley with a blue streak. In a lot of ways, the film was a warning to the greedy suits staring at stock markets in New York City. Come 2010, their greed has cost us much more then it probably cost them. I don't know if Oliver Stone figured that his film had that sort of foresight, or if it was more of a stage for Douglas to dance with charm. Either way, the film made such an impact that they decided that a sequel was in order... twenty-three years later.

In 2001, Gekko (Douglas) is at the end of his eight-year prison term and by this time, he has no one to pick him up as he makes his way towards freedom. With nothing but a few gold watches and a mobile phone the size of a satellite, Gekko stands with scruff on his face and bitterness in his eyes as he's forced to take a cab on the way out of jail. Fast forward to 2008, and Gekko has decided to publish his financial advice book, "Is Greed Good?". He's headlining book signings and making speeches at colleges, marketing himself as a reformed sinner come to warn everyone about economic doom that is just around the corner. An economic doom that exists because of the very society of financial impropriety that he was at the center of two decades ago. In times of panic, people turn to strange advisers, and with the stock market sinking, Gekko is allowed to speak in front of hundreds of accounting students as a man of wisdom.

Gordon catches the eye of the new, young Wall Street hotshot Jake Moore (Shia LeBeouf), who specializes in alternative energy. Jake is the protege of the veteran, disgruntled investment banker Louis Zabel (Frank Langella). Zabel gives Jake a $1.4 million bonus, days before his bank goes down the toilet. In a moment of complete vulnerability, Zabel is forced to sell to monolithic rival banker Bretton James (Josh Brolin - who plays the part with Gekko-like ruthlessness) for pennies on the dollar. The presence of the failure so large causes Zabel to throw himself in front of a subway train. The bank was sunk because of anonymous, incriminating rumors spread throughout the financial district (where, we learn, gossip flies faster then a sewing circle). The rumors are almost directly connected to Bretton James, and Jake instantly sees the man as a villain.

He soon finds that his distaste with Bretton is shared by Gordon Gekko. But there's a wrinkle in Jake's curiosity with Gekko, and that is that he's engaged to his estranged daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan). Jake approaches Gekko after one of his many school speeches and is able to get a private conversation with him after he mentions the engagement. Gekko admits that it was Bretton's slimy admissions that caused him to go to prison for eight years, and he agrees to help Jake take Bretton down, if he also helps him re-establish his relationship with Winnie. Jake is able to get in with Bretton pretty quickly, but getting Winnie to reconnect with her father turns out to be trickier. She has no trust for him and is convinced that he'll find a way to hurt the both of them, but Jake is unconvinced, sure that prison has changed Gekko for the better. As Jake gets deeper with Bretton, Gekko comes closer to Winnie, but no one's intentions are as ideal as they seem and everything soon bursts as the lies are exposed.

When you consider that Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a sequel twenty years removed from its original - which in of itself is a pretty dated 80's movie - the film is actually rather amiable. Douglas gives his best performance in close to a decade, obviously refreshed by reprising his Oscar-winning role. He's got Gekko down pat, letting the squealing ruthlessness always be prevalent underneath the austere slickness. LeBeouf is very capable as the film's main protagonist, and is exceptionally better here then Charlie Sheen was as the focus of the first Wall Street (and right on cue, Sheen does make a small cameo as his character, Bud Fox, just in case we were all wondering what he was doing these days). With its good cast, the film is able to take full advantage of their talent, since their performances fully outperform the screenplay that they speak through.

I admit that I have a prejudice with films like these, since I know close to nothing about financials and when the film goes on long stretches explaining the so called nuances of the stock market and the economy, I tune out. There are still certain concepts within this film that I'm still not sure I truly understand, and that is not the film's fault. What is the film's fault is its incessant need to be topical. Oliver Stone jumps at the opportunity to capture the moment of a downfall that he doesn't totally stop to think about whether or not his methods and metaphors are a bit too heavy-handed. This is particularly true about a ridiculously obvious motif involving children and bubble makers, and I'll just leave you with the suspense on that one.

But I guess that's the way Stone tells stories, and that is why I barely enjoy any of his films (with the big exception of Platoon). It's a shame because Stone's overwrought techniques really undermine what is actually a relatively fine film. There's a carousel of entertaining supporting performances from Mulligan, Brolin, as well as Susan Surandon and Eli Wallach (who I'm pretty sure has died twenty years ago - his corpse is getting all the work, now). If I'd worked at a movie studio, I'm not sure I would even endorse a sequel to Wall Street, since I'm not sure how big of an impact its really had outside of style and snazzy movie quotes. But alas, I don't get paid to make those kind of decisions, and that's probably for the better. Whether or not greed is good, there's plenty of it in movie making these days.

Death of 'The Master'

Grim news has emerged from various blogs and entertainment sites: production on Paul Thomas Anderson's next film, The Master, has been suspended indefinitely. Meaning, while the film is not cancelled, the chances of it being made with the stellar cast and crew that was being reported suddenly seem pretty meek. This is devastating for anyone who's been following the development of this project for the last few months. It was beginning to rack up an astounding collection of talent both in front and behind the camera. First off, it is a P.T. Anderson screenplay, which is enough to get at least me excited, since he's probably the greatest contemporary filmmaker in the business right now. Then there was the news that Philip Seymour Hoffman would play the lead role, while there would be a supporting cast including Jeremy Renner, Reese Witherspoon, and Thomas Jane. Add to that, Robert Elswit - frequent Anderson collaborator and Oscar-winner for shooting Anderson's There Will Be Blood - was signed on as well to be Director of Photography. It's a tremendous group of people to come together for one movie, and being slated for release in 2011, it probably would have been the most anticipated film of next year. And now it seems over.

The screenplay (various drafts have been leaked around, so many have read it - though I have not) is about a man dubbed The Master, who becomes the leader of an exciting new religion in the 1950's. Apparently, this religion bares a striking resemblance to Scientology, and The Master is meant to be a recreation of Scientology's creator, science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Most of the film deals with The Master's strongest follower, Freddie, who has become entirely entranced by the charms and manipulations of the religious figure. Some have described the script as Freddie's story, and his own fight for his soul. Hoffman was slated to play the title character, while Renner was set to play Freddie. Many who have gotten their hands on the script have praised its ambition, as well as its moral ambiguity, but there was a lot of concern for its marketability. As blogger Simon Dang wrote in his blog The Playlist: "if intelligent dramas are being threatened with extinction of late (or at least at a certain budget), surely this could become a problem for PTA."

Now, there are certainly plenty of conspiracy theories that could easily and irresponsibly planted. Most obviously, the film seems to target one of the most burgeoning new religions in Los Angeles, so it's not like making this film would get P.T. Anderson any friends. The ominous quote from Renner that there was a "wall we couldn't overcome - or, at least Paul couldn't overcome", may suggest a certain director-talent altercation or tension. We'll probably never discover the truth. Here are the facts: Both Renner and Hoffman have signed onto numerous, high-budget projects that will probably fill up their time for the better part of a year. Also, The Master's financial backers, River Road, have said that they are no longer financing the project. So, as much as I hope the film will eventually get made, I know that the version The Master that we've been obsessively anticipating for about half a year will probably never see the light of day.

Post-Festival Oscar Predix

Now that both Venice and Toronto have closed up shop, we finally have a clearer picture of where we might be heading come Oscar-baiting time at the end of the year. With Sofia Coppola's Somewhere winning at Venice, many were surprised since Black Swan was getting all the best notices and Coppola's film getting nothing particularly positive in its reviews (in fact, many cried fowl saying that Jury Head Quentin Tarantino was picking favorites since he and Coppola used to have a romantic relationship). At the end of the Toronto fest, the Colin Firth-lead film The King's Speech won the big prize, the People's Choice Audience Award. It makes a lot of sense when you consider the film's high concept plot and period setting (both are crowd-pleasing, and therefore, Academy pleasing). So, now we're not totally shooting blind when we do our best to do Oscar nomination predictions. With mid-September upon us, here's what the Oscar forecast is looking like (in my opinion):

BEST ACTOR
Javier Bardem, BIUTIFUL
Robert Duvall, GET LOW
Colin Firth, THE KING'S SPEECH
James Franco, 127 HOURS
Mark Wahlberg, THE FIGHTER

BEST ACTRESS
Annette Bening, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Anne Hathaway, LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS
Jennifer Lawrence, WINTER'S BONE
Natalie Portman, BLACK SWAN
Michelle Williams, BLUE VALENTINE

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale, THE FIGHTER
Dustin Hoffman, BARNEY'S VERSION
Ed Harris, THE WAY BACK
Mark Ruffalo, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Geoffrey Rush, THE KING'S SPEECH

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, THE FIGHTER
Keira Knightley, NEVER LET ME GO
Lesley Manville, ANOTHER YEAR
Julianne Moore, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Miranda Richardson, MADE IN DAGENHAM

BEST DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky, BLACK SWAN
Danny Boyle, 127 HOURS
David Fincher, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Mike Leigh, ANOTHER YEAR
Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumber, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Andres Heinz and Mark Heyman & John McLaughlin, BLACK SWAN
Mike Leigh, ANOTHER YEAR
Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION
David Seidler, THE KING'S SPEECH

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Michael Arndt, TOY STORY 3
Simon Beaufoy & Danny Boyle, 127 HOURS
Alex Garland, NEVER LET ME GO
Debra Granik & Andrea Rosellini, WINTER'S BONE
Aaron Sorkin, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

BEST PICTURE
127 Hours
Another Year
Black Swan
Blue Valentine
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
Never Let Me Go
The Social Network
Toy Story 3

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
How To Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Toy Story 3

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Roger Deakins, TRUE GRIT
Matthew Libatique, BLACK SWAN
Anthony Dod Mantle & Enrique Chediak, 127 HOURS
Wally Pfister, INCEPTION
Martin Ruhe, THE AMERICAN

BEST ART DIRECTION
Stuart Craig, HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS
Guy Dyas, INCEPTION
Jess Gonchor, TRUE GRIT
Kalina Ivanov, THE CONSPIRATOR
Eve Stewart, THE KING'S SPEECH

BEST EDITING
Kirk Baxter & Angus Wall, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Jon Harris, 127 HOURS
Pamela Martin, THE FIGHTER
Lee Smith, INCEPTION
Andrew Weisblum, BLACK SWAN

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Coleen Atwood, ALICE IN WONDERLAND
Jenney Beavan, THE KING'S SPEECH
Louise Frogley, THE CONSPIRATOR
Janty Yates, ROBIN HOOD
Mary Zophres, TRUE GRIT

BEST SCORE
Carter Burwell, TRUE GRIT
Rachel Portman, NEVER LET ME GO
John Powell, HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON
Gustavo Santaoalla, BIUTIFUL
Hans Zimmer, INCEPTION