Taking Woodstock

Directed by Ang Lee
Written by Written by James Schamus
Starring Dimitri Martin, Henry Goodman, and Imelda Staunton

Taking Woodstock is the story about how the legendary three day concert, which celebrated it's 40th Anniversary this past August, came into existence. The townsfolk in the original location ran the Woodstock organizers out of town because of the counter cultural people (hippies) it would attract. At the same time, Elliot Teichberg (Dimitri Martin) is working hard to save his parent's fledgling hotel from foreclosure. When he hears that Woodstock is in jeopardy he works hard to save both the concert and the hotel by bringing the event to his hometown despite similar objections from the locals. What starts as an attempt to pay the mortgage explodes into the defining event of a generation.

The story is interesting but in this film it has no weight, no depth, and is just flat out empty.

One of the reasons is because the film is exclusively comprised of 60's stereotypes. The hippies are beyond peace loving and approach some kind of transcendental state of harmony. The townsfolk are so conservative that they spend most of their time grimacing at anything that resembles counter-culture. The theater group, led by Devon (Dan Fogler,) spends all their time doing unique acting exercises and putting on shows that challenge the audience to "expand their mind." Vietnam vet Billy (Emile Hirsch) is affected by the war but only in a movie way. He suffers from the movie version of flashback, which means he wakes up screaming and feels like people are watching him when he is in the forest. None of these characters are authentic by any stretch of the imagination, they are all surface deep. It feels like rather than really researching the people and the culture of the era the filmmakers based the characters on people from other movies about the 60's; everybody is a copy of a copy.

Elliot, the main character, appears to be in a constant daze through out the film peppered with a few moments of worry or confusion. It's hard to root for a character who constantly has a "why me" look on his face. In this film, Dimitri Martin has absolutely no charisma or screen presence, he is a complete bore. In a few scenes, when he does display some emotion, it is kind of surprising and a little off putting because it seems to come out of nowhere. I was shocked to see that he could do something besides stare at everything in a wide-eyed wonder.

If I were to pick a favorite character or performance in this film it would almost certainly be concert promoter Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) not because he does anything special but because it is so outlandish. He speaks in a ethereal tone and uses a horse as his primary means of transportation. He is the ultimate hippie bringing peace and enlightenment everywhere he goes. Who else could have been the guy to start Woodstock but somebody that rides around on a horse?

I say that he is almost certainly my "favorite" character because I can't ignore Vilma (Liev Schreiber), the cross-dressing former marine. This character is the kind of person that can only exists in the movies. Not only is Vilma a cross-dresser, but he also provides magical sage-like advice to people, wears a gun strapped to his leg, and provides people with pot brownies. Now, I'm sure that a person with all these traits exists, but I've never met them. This whole character is fantastically unbelievable and outrageous and it feels likes he would be more fitting in a farce, than a comedy-drama.

As for the concert, well, if I had never heard of Woodstock before I watched this film I would have no indication that it was the defining moment of a generation. The film tries to show the significance of this concert amid the turbulent year of 1969, but it doesn't sink in. The characters seem largely unaffected by the lunar landing and war in Vietnam, though it could be because I was largely unaffected by the characters. Still, the story asks the audience to be in the era without being willing to bringing them into it. As a result Woodstock just feels like something that happened.

I was completely underwhelmed by this joyless experience. Director Ang Lee fails to capture any of the energy of the original concert. I was completely and utterly unmoved by the characters and story of this film. It's a film that tries to tell the story of Woodstock without being able to capture the reason why it was so significant. It's like the Pepsi sponsored Woodstock of 1994, without the spirit of the original it's just a show.

Inglourious Basterds

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, and Melanie Laurent

I'm of the opinion that Mr. Tarantino has already made his greatest film, the masterpiece known as Pulp Fiction (1994). Like Orson Welles with Citizen Kane (1941), Tarantino reached the pinnacle of his success early and has nowhere else to go but down. Now in this case, much like Welles, down for him is better than most people's good films. Let's just be honest, how could he ever top Pulp Fiction? This is actually kind of a cool place for a life long film nerd like Tarantino to find himself; he has the opportunity to indulge every cinematic desire he has and make any project he dreams up a reality. He is able to just simply play while being confident that he has cemented his place in cinematic history with his second feature film.

This is both a blessing and a curse and it has never been more evident than in his latest film, Inglourious Basterds. The blessings are obvious, Tarantino has a great deal of knowledge and love for cinema and fills every frame of his films with that knowledge and love. I have to admit that for the most part it is fun watching Tarantino, a cinema geek, indulging his every whim.

From the opening shot this film feels like an epic. It opens on a small dairy farm in Paris where a farmer is chopping wood and his daughter is hanging laundry. They are visited by a Nazi officer named Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) who has earned his nickname "Jew Hunter" doing exactly what his name describes. This scene is wonderful and very reminiscent of the opening scene of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, (1966) where a serene landscape is disturbed by mayhem at the hand of a villain.

From that point we meet the "Basterds" who are led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), their job is to simply drop behind enemy lines and kill as many Nazis as possible. They are driven by their desire to strike fear into the entire Nazi party by committing acts of carnage. We also meet a Jewish cinema owner named Shosanna Dreyfus, (Melanie Laurent) whose family was slaughtered in the opening scene and a German actress named Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) who is a double agent working with the British to fight the Nazis. Also a British film critic named Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender), who specializes in German film, is given the assignment to set up a meeting between the Basterds and Bridget. The climatic showdown takes place at a movie premiere for a Nazi propaganda film called "Nation's Pride," in which the entire Nazi high command attends, including Hitler himself.

So, in a film directed by a movie obsessed director an actress and film critic aid a bunch of soldiers in fighting the Nazi's at a movie theater. Not very subtle, and more than a little self indulgent, but a great deal of fun.

Tarantino is a writer/director and he is great at both jobs. He writes rich, detailed, and highly entertaining characters. These characters are the kind of characters that only exist in the movies and there is a reason why; they are legendary from the moment they arrive on the screen, larger than life than life in every way. They talk as if they know that every word they say will be quoted for decades to come.

As a director, Tarantino has an eye for casting that makes these characters come alive. Brad Pitt is highly entertaining in what is essentially a comedic performance. Pitt is a movie star because of his good looks, but he is a great actor because he is highly talented and committed to doing great work. There is glee in his performance and it is contagious. Melanie Laurent is the emotional center of this film. She witnessed the slaughter of her family and is now driven by revenge. She is willing to give up everything for a chance to make the Nazi's pay for their crimes. In addition, she has the screen presence of a classic movie star. Much has been said about the performance of Christoph Waltz since the film premiered at Cannes this past May. I don't have much more to add than to say that he is indeed great as the film's villain.

Yes, this film is a good deal of fun with some great performances and epic scenes but it is heavily weighed down by Tarantino's greatest indulgence: his love for his own dialogue. The man can write beautifully and he knows it. He writes twenty minute scenes full of dialogue that give great insight into the characters but eventually they stop the flow of the movie dead in it's tracks. After awhile the characters are just talking and the plot shifts into idle. I became bored at the inane conversations they began to have about anything and everything. That indulgence is the curse of this movie.

Everything else is so rich and exciting but the long scenes of dialogue make them fade into the background. I'm not complaining about Tarantino's dialogue because it can be very exciting, fun, and insightful. My complaint is that in this film it often fails to serve the rest of the film and slowly drags the entire story down. It tends to strike out on its own leaving the rest of the film behind.

Also, there are a few scenes in which Tarantino fails to skillfully balance the humor of one character with the sincerity of another. One specific scene is when Raines is interrogating a German officer named Sgt. Werner Rachtman (Richard Sammel). Raines makes Rachtman a deal that he will spare his life if he reveals the location of German snipers. Out of an admirable loyalty to his brothers in arms Rachtman refuses and Raines and the Basterds kill him. Pitt is playing this scene for laughs, as his character and the film dictates. Sammel is playing the scene with conviction and sincerity, as his character and the scene dictates for him. These two contrasting performances and contrasting directions in the scene are in conflict and as a result the scene becomes cruel and more than slightly disturbing.

Overall, I can't say that I enjoyed this film because of that over indulgence of Tarantino dialogue. It stalled the movie for me despite my enjoyment of Tarantino's cinematic indulgences. Replacing the word "indulgence" for the word "drunk" I would say that when Tarantino is a cinematic drunk he is the life of the party and you want to be around him. When he is drunk on the love of his own dialogue he kills the party by trying to bring attention to how great he thinks he is and how we should all celebrate him. Nobody likes a drunk who is desperate for adoration.

District 9

Directed by Neill Blomkamp
Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
Starring Sharlto Copley, Vanessa Haywood, and Jason Cope



District 9 is an example of what happens when science fiction is used to both entertain and educate an audience. The film never fails to deliver on "wow" moments and at the same time makes a rather profound statement on racial discrimination and segregation. The film is directed and co-written by Neill Blomkamp, who is from South Africa and used his experiences with Apartheid as an influence for this story about aliens who have no place in our world.

From the opening scene the audience is immersed into the world of District 9. One of the ways Blomkamp is able to make the world seem so real is by how he wants us to react to the aliens on screen. They are suppose to be accepted as a fact of life in the world he created. He achieves this feeling of normalcy by employing a few techniques. The first of which is that the actors on screen are never once in awe of the aliens. Nearly every interaction a human has with an alien is depicted as a regular part of daily life. JJ Abrams did the same thing in Star Trek. There is something disarming about this technique that I really enjoy. It keeps me from being distracted by cheap special effect thrills and keeps me focused on the story.

When humans discover something new about the aliens, usually concerning their technology, there is a sense of awe. That sense of awe is communicated by the character's reactions and felt by the audience.

The film is presented in a mockumentary fashion; it combines a traditional narrative storytelling style with that of a documentary. The title of the film refers to a section of government housing that is home to a race of aliens known as "prawns." This is a derogatory as it infers that the aliens are more like insects than anything else. We are told that the aliens arrived to Earth twenty years ago and since that time humanity has grown tired of them. The excitement of the discovery of an alien life form soon gave away to annoyance when it was discovered they were nothing more than refugees. Somehow their ship was disabled and now they can't leave the planet. This information is told to us through talking heads during on camera interviews. The documentary style allows the filmmakers to give the audience all the necessary background of "district 9."

This mockumentary style adds to the authenticity of the world that Blomkamp created. Because the information is given as a "history" it sort of tricks the audience into taking the film as fact. Now, obviously nobody should come out of this film feeling like it was an authentic documentary, but it certainly feels like an authentic documentary. I mean to be honest, it's not that different from the filmmaking style of Michael Moore. You tell a story by claiming people are experts and then you cut the footage to make it feel like fact. During that process it begins to resemble reality.

The documentary footage prepares us for the story that is told in this film. The story begins when we are introduced to a young and inexperienced government worker named Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) who has been given the task of relocating all the aliens to new government housing. During this assignment he comes into contact with an alien substance that changes his life forever. He is forced to seek the aid of an alien referred to as Christopher Johnson.

Blomkamp is also a director that knows how to use special effects and it is so refreshing. There are actual set pieces in this film that get crushed and destroyed. All of the aliens in this film are computer generated. Despite that fact they all seems so authentic. They interact flawlessly with the humans. It has become so easy for filmmakers to rely on special effects that in many cases they fail to impress. Here is a filmmaker who is using effects to enhance the story rather than telling it for him.

I feel like filmmakers are constantly taking their audiences for granted. It's almost like they feel like they don't have to earn the time, money, or emotional investment that we put into a film. Blomkamp is giving the audience a great story, with strong social themes, and moving characters; as well as some awe inspiring moments along the way. This film is smart, entertaining, and in some respects, challenging.

There are so many things that I admire about this film. First of all, it is so refreshing to see that there is somebody out there willing to take a chance on a new and original idea. Peter Jackson is the producer of this film and he was the one who was willing to take such a chance. Upon reading about how it came to be I discovered that it started because of a planned adaptation of the popular "Halo" video game series. Blomkamp had made short films to promote a new installment of the series and later, when Jackson was preparing to make a feature film, he tapped Blomkamp to direct it. Complications with the studios involved resulted in the plans for the film to fall apart and Jackson reportedly gave Blomkamp $30 million and told him to go make whatever he wanted. I sincerely hope that this inspires studio heads every where to take risks. Still, a great behind the story of a film's production does not make for a great film.

Everything else about District 9 makes it a great film.

The Time Traveler's Wife

Directed by Robert Schwentke
Written by Bruce Joel Rubin
Starring Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams, and Ron Livingston

This film had everything it needed to succeed. It has two great actors in two great roles. It is a great story adapted from Audrey Nuffinegger's great novel of the same name. Yet, it did not succeed.

What happened? Well, the film requires the audience to be invested in not only the characters, but in their lives, and in their marriage as well. It doesn't allow for the audience to know the characters, their lives, or their marriage. It simply moved through out the story without inviting the audience to be invested in it. In the story, Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) is a time traveler and I felt like I had the same reaction to the film as he did to his life. He is constantly being tossed through out time and I was constantly being tossed from one plot point to the other.

In this film, being a time traveler is not a good thing. It is actually a disease that causes a person to jump around in time. Why this genetic disease causes the character to slowly fade by way of pixie dust I do not know. It seems like it would be sudden and violent, instead of looking like taking a trip with Tinkerbell by way of her fairy dust.

Henry's wife, Claire, (Rachel McAdams) meets him when she is six years old and he is in his late thirties. He doesn't meet her until he is in his late twenties/early thirties and she is in her early twenties. It was an older versions of himself that met her when she was six. You'll just have to trust me that those last few sentences make sense in the context of the story. The reason why he met her when she was so much young is because when he travels in time he is pulled towards "big events" in his own life. Claire is an important part of his life, so he is constantly pulled towards her.

With that in mind it seems like the filmmakers would have put a great deal of focus on the marriage of these two characters. I mean the marriage is strong enough that Henry is passing through time and space to meet his wife when she is a child. In order to understand that we should have really gotten to know these two characters as well as their life together. As it stands, we didn't get to know them or their marriage. We simply pass through the big events of their lives. I didn't understand why Henry was visiting her beyond the fact that the story required him to do it.

The characters have the potential to be really deep and interesting but we only get snapshots of the complexity of them. When Claire first spends the night with Henry and finds lipstick (not his) in his medicine cabinet that should say something about Henry's nature at that point in his life. That isn't explored at all, it is passed right on by it to the next scene. They talk about it, it's barely addressed, and the story moves on. In that next scene Henry and Claire are much closer. Again, I was asking why? The only reason that I came up with was because that is what the story needed.

I would have loved to spend time with these two characters. Eric Bana is a fantastic actor and I always enjoy seeing him in a film. He has been in two other films this summer and they couldn't be more different from one another. He was the villian in Star Trek, which was a bit role but he really committed to the part and seemed to have a lot of fun with it. He also had a great role in Funny People in which he gives sympathy to a character that we are initially suppose to hate. He plays Henry with a certain sadness that comes from being burdened by constantly being ripped from his present life, which is his home. Also, he is a character that more or less knows what is going to happen for the rest of his life. If that isn't enough he is burdened by knowing the fate of nearly everybody around him. Bana gives us a glimpse into that character but the filmmakers don't let us explore it.

Rachel McAdams has a strong screen presence and it is no fault of her own if we don't fall instantly in love with her character. She plays the younger Claire with a wide eyed wonder. Claire has finally "caught up" to the love of her life and it is all excitement. The reality of living with, and being in love with a time traveler starts to wear on her. Again, McAdams gives us something in this character, but we don't have time to enjoy it.

There is no sense of wonder in this film. There is no sense of romance in this film. There is no sense of joy or sadness in this film. I didn't get to experience the marriage of two characters that have fallen in love despite the fact that one of them is constantly being thrown through time. It is, quite simply, a wasted opportunity.

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard

Directed by Neal Brennan

Written by Andy Stock and Rick Stempson

Starring Jeremy Piven, James Brolin, and Ving Rhames

A film that relies so heavily on jokes about erections shouldn’t be this impotent. One of the running gags in this film revolves around “boy bands,” specifically a group called O-Town. Never heard of O-Town? That’s fine, they are an obscure boy band from 2001, during the height of the boy band craze. Remember boy bands from like eight years ago? Basically, if you weren’t a teenage girl in 2001 then you probably haven’t heard of them and therefore, probably won’t laugh at the dozen or so jokes that are made at their expense. Yet, that is only the symptom, not the illness that runs rampart through out this film.

The illness is that the makers of this film are not talented. They don’t seem to understand the ins and outs of jokes, or even story telling for that matter, but they have cracked open a comedy self help book and have followed the formula to the letter. Remember that scene in Borat (2006) in which Sacha Baron Cohen visited that comedy school and the instructor taught him about “not” jokes? Well, I think it is safe to say the makers of this film have visited a similar class.

The symptom causing the O-Town reference is the result of the filmmakers knowing that pop culture references get laughs in other films but failing to understand why. They don’t understand that the reference needs to be instantly recognizable by the culture at large or it won’t be funny. They don’t understand that obscure references can work but they still have to reside in the collective conscience of culture.

This film is like watching amateur level stand-up or sketch comedy. They are just doing what they saw others do. They have watched their comedy fathers mow the lawn and now they are following behind them with plastic mowers.

The screenplay of this film is the most obvious example of the “follow the formula” technique that it employs. Local car dealership owner Ben Selleck (James Brolin) is in danger of losing his business to a more successful dealership ran by Stu Harding (Alan Thicke) and his son Paxton (Ed Helms). They want to use Ben’s lot to sell cars and provide a rehearsal space for Paxton’s boy band. In order to save the dealership Ben hires legendary salesman Don Ready (Jeremy Piven) and his gang to come to town to move all the cars and save the dealership. Along the way Don begins to fall in love with Ben’s daughter Ivy (Jordana Spiro), who is engaged to Paxton.

So let’s take a look at the basic elements of this screenplay. You have a down on his luck family man seeking the services of a charismatic funnyman to save them from the schemes of the rich man and his son. In the process of helping the family man the funnyman falls for his daughter who is engaged to the rich son. Doesn’t it sound familiar? The writers of this film didn’t write a screenplay; they came up with lame jokes and plugged them into some generic screenplay formula.

There are high caliber performers (not performances) in this film; they all have highly respected resumes. Most of these people have worked with Judd Apatow and/or appeared on The Office. Cast members Ken Jeong, Rob Riggle, and Ed Helms were in The Hangover. Riggle was also a correspondent on the Daily Show. Jeremy Piven is an award-winning actor for his performance on Entourage. These are great performers and people who really understand comedy. However, this film goes to show that without a vision from the director it will all be in vain.

Director Neal Brennan and writers Andy Stock and Rick Stempson don’t give the performers anything to do with their talent. They are stuck relying on gags that don’t work and a formulaic story to move through. All their talent is wasted in this film.

There are a few gags that work but they are few and far in between. They are lost in everything else in this film. They might work but they aren't enough to redeem the film.

Julie and Julia

Written and Directed by Nora Ephron
Starring Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, and Stanley Tucci

The story of Julie and Julia is one of two lost people who use the act of preparing meals to find a purpose. Julia is Julia Child, (Meryl Streep) world-renowned chef who introduced French cuisine to American audiences. Julie is Julie Powell, (Amy Adams) a woman who decides to cook every meal in Child's cookbook within a year and blog about her experience. Both women are married to kind, supportive, and understand husbands. The similarities between the two women pretty much end there.

Julia is a very tall woman with a big personality to match. She is loud and full of life. She is very personable and seems to bring joy to the lives of others. She is married to Paul Child (Stanley Tucci) and even though they are both in their forties they are very romantic and very vigorous in their physical relationship. They adore one another and it shows. We open on her story as Julia and Paul are moving to Paris because of his work in the American Embassy. Julia finds that Paris is thriving with excitement and culture and she falls in love with it. She loves the city and she moved to support Paul but she still needs something to do with her time. She loves eating so she decides to become a chef and quickly finds that not only does she love eating but she also loves preparing food. She isn't out to prove anything to anybody, she just wants to do what she loves and she wants to do it well.

On the other hand, Julie is a petite woman with a gloomy personality. When we open on her story she is moving into a shabby apartment in Queens with her husband Eric (Chris Messina). Within the first few moments in this new apartment she has a break down from the stress in her life. She doesn't want to live in Queens she wants to live somewhere with more prestige. All her friends are successful businesswomen and she works a small government job helping the victims of 9-11 with their insurance claims. She needs to find a purpose in her life because she needs to feel successful. She needs to be validated in the eyes of her friends. Her marriage is strong but she isn't always as engaged in it as her husband. She is more concerned with herself than her marriage.

For the first half of this film the opposite personalities of these two women work well together. It is essentially the same story taking place in two different time periods. It is a case of iron sharpening iron, the weakness of Julie and the strength of Julia make for an interesting dynamic. Both women are trying really hard to establish themselves and the two stories are strengthened by their opposite motivations and goals.

In the second half the individual stories change and rather than feeling like two stories working together they become two separate stories. The story of Julia Child becomes about who she is, her marriage, and how she came to author one of the most famous cookbooks of all time. Success in the culinary world is not the focus of the story about Julia Child. The focus is Julia Child and it is a great story. It is very easy to root for this character because she is so lovable. Streep gives into the force of nature that is Julia Child with reckless abandonment.

Child is not the kind of person who lets the bad times slow her down. There are times in this film in which Paul gives her bad news and you see her take it for the briefest of moments before she changes the conversation. Streep makes it clear that Child is not simply brushing it off. She has this look on her face that lets you know she is processing the bad news and when she is done she moves on to something else. For some undisclosed reason (in the film at least) Julia and Paul cannot have children. We first come to know this because in one scene they are walking in a park and pass a baby carriage. Julia looks back at the baby and then down at the ground. Paul then puts his arm around her and they keep walking and talking. This is a brilliant scene and the credit goes to Streep and Tucci for completely selling the scene without making a statement.

In the second half of the film Julie's story becomes all about her. She is writing this blog and cooking these recipes because she needs to validate herself. It isn't about wanting to do something she loves. She is doing it because one of her best friends has just started a blog and it is met with instant success. Through out the film she is constantly keeping track of how many people comment on her blog and celebrates each time the number is raised. At first it is fun to watch her tackle the recipes in Child's book but after awhile it becomes completely about her vanity.

Julie is always complaining about everything and her husband just tries to hear her out. He is standing by her as she works on this project and cheers her on. She doesn't appear to be interested in anything that he is doing. Their marriage feels just as real as Paul and Julia's but it is completely different. Where as Paul and Julia had a marriage based on mutual edification it is one sided with Julie and Eric. In short Julie Powell is a bitch and I want to credit to both writer-director Nora Ephron and Amy Adams for letting the character be a bitch.

Last week I shared my respect for Adam Sandler and Judd Apatow because they had the courage to let their main character be an asshole for the purpose of the story in Funny People. Adams and Ephron are doing the same thing in this film. The character isn't completely unlikeble she is just shallow and narcissistic and it serves their story well. The story is about a woman trying to prove herself to society and they are okay with letting it be vain pursuit. Adams is not unlikable in this performance. She isn't a villain, she is actually very likable. She is okay with playing the character as she is without trying to make her cute so people will like her.

The only problem with it is that it is happening at the same time that we are rooting for Julia Child. These are two great stories but they don't always play well together. Still, I highly recommend this film. It is so refreshing to see a film that is based on character not cheap thrills and when it is done as well as this one it is worth checking out.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Directed by Stephen Sommers

Written by Stuart Beattie, David Elliot, and Paul Lovett

Starring Channing Tatum, Siena Miller, and Marlon Wayans

The action in G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra is coherent. I was able to follow what was happening on the screen because it was clearly shot and well edited. For some time now all actions scenes have been cut together in an incoherent mess. Quick cuts and handheld cameras have become the norm and it is refreshing to view a film in which those techniques are not employed. Nothing about the action is impressive it is just coherent, much like the rest of the film.

For this film to be a complete disaster it would have had to strive for greatness. For it to be a failure of epic proportions it would have had to have nearly impossible to reach aspirations. To be labeled a “complete mess” the filmmakers would have had to demonstrate some level of incompetence. There are no boom mics in any of the shots and as I mentioned the actions scenes are well put together so they aren’t totally incompetent. To achieve the “so bad that it’s good” status the filmmakers would have needed to demonstrate some level of commitment to the material. G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra cannot be classified as any of these things because it doesn’t aspire to be anything more than on the screen. It does succeed in achieving that goal.

Director Stephen Sommers is like a high school student who just does the work he was assigned. He doesn’t put any effort into it beyond getting it done. When it is finished he turns it in and walks away from it. The teacher might ask him if this is his best work but he doesn’t care, it’s done and he can move on. This film is effortless as in it is completely without effort.

The first indication of this complete lack of effort is the quality of the special effects. This film has a great reliance on special effects, which is confusing because they are so poorly done. Yes, they do look fake but there is more to it. There are scenes in which the audience is supposed to be in awe, but all I could think about was how cheap the effects looked. I have seen independent shorts with better special effects than this film.

Sommers relies on effects when he could have gone without them. There are shots of the characters doing super human jumps and rather than relying on practical effects he uses CGI. Most filmmakers try hard to make their CGI blend into their live action, but not Sommers. For shots in which he could have used live action it was much easier for him to use a cheap looking CGI characters. In the before mentioned independent shorts the directors try to shoot around their CGI limitations. That would be too much work for this director; he puts his cheap looking effects front and center.

The three screenwriters don’t seem much more interested in doing any kind of work. There is a particularly annoying plot device concerning a tracking device in a briefcase. First the good guys have it and then the bad guys steal it. Then one of the good guys steals it back only to lose it again to the bad guys. Both sides know that there is a tracking device in the briefcase and rather than remove the device or the contents in the case they take turns turning it back on and off. Of course the story is filled with contrived dialogue and ridiculous situations but it is the lack of creativity that bothered me the most. There is a complete lack of spectacle in this film.

This is a film that was based on a cartoon that was made to sell toys. It should have been easy for the filmmakers to indulge themselves in this outlandish film. They could have gone off the wall and really had some fun. It didn’t have to be a great movie, because it never was going to be, it just had to be a fun and exciting film.

The only people who seem to be having fun are the cast members. Sure some of them really chew the scenery, like Dennis Quaid for example. However, at very least he is having fun. Marlon Wayans plays a character named Ripcord and he is the comic relief. He is irritating but at least he is committed to the film. Channing Tatum doesn’t really have any sort of commanding presence but he plays his part with a slight grin on his face. Now don’t get me wrong they are not great performances they are simply engaged. There are only two performances that really do stand out in this film.

Sienna Miller plays a villain named Baroness and she represents the complete opposite of the filmmakers. She plays her part with complete conviction and really understands the film. She completely commits to her character and there is a sort of twinkle in her eye that tells us she is really enjoying herself.

The same goes for Joseph Gordon-Levitt as The Doctor. He is a very talented actor who doesn’t water down his performance just because he is in a movie based on a toy line. He also plays his part with complete commitment even though he is wearing heavy make-up and is hidden in his Darth Vader like costume. He could have played the costume, but instead he plays the character.

If the filmmakers had the same level of commitment to the material as these two actors then this movie would have been totally different. It wouldn’t have been a great film but it would have been an entertaining film. As it stands, it is neither impressive in success or failure, it is simply forgettable.

Funny People

Directed by Judd Apatow

Written by Judd Apatow

Starring Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, and Leslie Mann

The title is Funny People and being that the film is written and directed by Judd Apatow (The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up) one would assume that the key word is "funny." That assumption would be secured in the fact that the film stars Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen, two very funny and talented comedians. However, despite those above mentioned assurances and even though this film has some really funny moments the key word in the title is "people."

This is a movie about people. People who are real, honest, flawed, caring, loving, jealous, selfish and as the title suggest-funny. I know the people in this film. My friends are like these people. I have worked with these people. I have done sketch shows with these people. My family members are like these people. I am like these people. This is one of the most honest and authentic portrayals of people that I have ever seen on film. There were times in which I squirmed in my seat because I have acted like the characters on screen in word, deed, and feeling. This is what happens when I watch Apatow films. Whether he wrote it, directed it, or produced it his film are defined by the characters, the humor, and the true to life situations.

Funny People feels even more familiar because it is his most personal film. The film opens with a home video of Adam Sandler, in character, making prank phone calls. This isn't a home video produced for the film it is an actual home video of Adam Sandler making prank phone calls and it was shot by Judd Apatow twenty years ago. Through out his career Apatow has made many friends in the world of comedy and many of them are in this film. He cast his wife Leslie Mann to play a mother and his own daughters, Maude and Iris, to play her daughters. The story is based on an unrevealed friend's battle with a terminal illness. I have to imagine that the experiences of the characters are based on his own experiences. The film is more authentic than his other films because he is putting his life on the screen. I have a great deal of respect for him for doing it, but the question is does this make for a great film?

The answer is yes and very much so.

The story follows comedian George Simmons (Adam Sandler) who has achieved a great deal of professional success. He is diagnosed with a terminal illness and for the first time begins to question the course of his life. He quickly realizes that he is selfish, shallow, and worse of all alone. He hires a young comedian Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to be his personal assistant and to write jokes for him. The working relationship turns into something resembling a friendship, although it appears to be one sided with Ira caring more about George. Ira encourages George to reach out to his friends and family during his remaining time on Earth.

Adam Sandler is great in this film. He is the star of it and he has the courage to play the character without looking for sympathy. The character is a real son of a bitch and while he is aware of it, he doesn't seem to want to change it. When bad things happen to him it is because he is a victim, not because he has done anything wrong. He cheated on the love of his life, Laura (Leslie Mann) and while he acknowledges that he was wrong for doing it, he stills feels like he deserves another shot. He needs somebody to talk to him while he falls asleep; this is actually in Ira's job description. I cannot imagine a more selfish need than this one. Ira pulls a chair up next to his bed and talks to him until he abruptly falls asleep, ending the conversation. Sandler has a few chances to ask for sympathy, but he turns them down. For instance, when George is invited over to Ira's place for Thanksgiving dinner he gives a big toast about how the people around the table should enjoy their twenties because it is the best time of their lives. This speech isn't for the benefit of the people around the table it is for his own personal nostalgia and Sandler shows that on George's face. He is talking about the things that he misses in his life, not encouraging them to enjoy this time in their lives.

Any sympathy we have for anybody in this film is through the character Ira Wright, because he is a genuinely good person. Ira is struggling to begin his career. He lives with two other comedians named Mark (Jason Schwartzman) and Leo, (Jonah Hill) who are enjoying much more success. Mark is the star of a terrible sitcom called "Yo Teach", and he makes a lot of money for it. Actually, he makes $25,000 a week for it; we know this because he leaves the check stub on Ira's pillow. Leo isn't as successful but he is constantly being booked for stand up gigs and is beginning to establish his career. These details are important because they not only define Seth Rogen's character but also reveal the world of comedy to the audience. It is a cutthroat world and Ira has trouble because he isn't as aggressive as his friends. It has nothing to do with talent it has everything to do with his character and confidence. He is a good person trying to survive in a competitive world, even when he makes mistakes. The one time he does wrong somebody it blows up in his face and it feels like it is more out of desperation than malice.

He can't even keep up in the world of dating because he doesn't want to simply sleep with women, he wants to get to know them and be in a relationship. He has a crush on his neighbor Daisy (Aubrey Plaza) but is too afraid to talk to her. Mark just wants to have sex with her. He tells Ira that he has ten days to make his move and if he doesn't he will sleep with her. Mark ends up giving Ira three weeks and then sleeps with her. When Ira finds out he is hurt because A) Mark slept with her just because he could and B) because Daisy went along with it. Ira is a nice guy and this film doesn't guarantee that nice guys will win out in the end.

Ira actually cares for George and considers him a friend. Whenever George realizes this he corrects Ira but doesn't send him away because he is afraid to be alone. Ira stays with George in these situations because he cares for him.

I sincerely hope that after this film Seth Rogen is finally recognized as an actor that does comedy instead of a "comedic actor." From The 40 Year Old Virgin to Knocked Up to Pineapple Express Rogen has delivered strong-character-driven performances. He deserves to be recognized for the work that he puts in to his films because it is really impressive.

Finally, I want to end where I began, with Judd Apatow. I want to applaud him for telling this story as filmmaker rather than a comedian. Traditionally, comedies don't rely on filmmaking techniques as much as they rely on the zany performances to carry the film. Judd Apatow hired Janusz Kaminski to be the Cinematographer for this film. Janusz won an Academy Award for Schindler's List and has worked on every Spielberg film since. If you are hiring him to make your film look that good it implies that you are more interested in making a film rather than a "comedy."

If Apatow were interested in just making a comedy so that people would laugh he would not have made this film. He set out to make a strong film about people who work in comedy. He didn't really on jokes to tell this story, he relied on his characters. He hired people that are typically though of as comedians to act, not perform, in this film. When the film is funny it is because they are using jokes not doing "bits."

This is not a gut busting film and it is kind of a downer at times, but it is a great film.

Orphan

Director Jaume Collet-Serra
Written by David Johnson
Starring Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, and Isabelle Furhman

The best horror films might make you jump out of your seat but they are able to do so because they play into very real primitive fears. Jaws addressed a fear that many people have about the ocean. The original Nightmare on Elm Street gave audiences nightmares by putting the worse of them on screen. Halloween was a slasher film but was scary because we can all relate to that fear of a home invasion, same with the original Alien. Orphan is about what happens when you let somebody into your home and make yourself emotionally vulnerable to them only to have them try to hurt you and kill you.

The film is about John (Peter Sarsgaard) and Kate (Vera Farmiga) who adopt a young girl named Esther ( Isabelle Fuhrman) into their family which already includes Daniel (Jimmy Bennett) and Max (Aryana Engineer). The family has already suffered a tragedy when Kate went through a traumatic miscarriage and nearly avoided another tragedy when Max fell into a frozen pond. Kate was too drunk to realize that her youngest daughter was drowning and Max was saved by John. After that Kate gave up drinking. The film never comes out and says that Kate started drinking because of the miscarriage but it is implied. When the film opens the family is still healing, Kate and John have trouble with intimacy, but they feel like they are ready to adopt. They meet Esther and instantly connect with her and decide to take her home.

One of the strongest elements of this film is the fact that if you stripped away all the horror elements it could also play as a family drama. There is great care put into creation of the characters both on the side of the actors and the filmmakers. When Esther is brought home Max is ecstatic to have an older sister. Max is completely deaf and on the way home Esther learns how to greet her with sign language. With Daniel there is instant sibling rivalry, he doesn't want anything to do with this new sister. The marriage between Kate and John feels real. Through out the film their flaws and history are brought into the light but they are always in love with one another, even when they have problems their marriage endures. There was great care put into these characters and I very much appreciated it, especially in this genre.

At first Esther is nothing more than a peculiar girl. She prefers to spend time alone and dresses like she is from another time period even when she is presented with alternative outfits. She is also very guarded about her secrets. Her dark intentions begin to show up pretty much as soon as she arrives. When anybody slights her she returns the offense and then some. It is interesting to watch her begin to play Kate and John against each other and slowly begin to erode the trust in their household.

Director Jaume Collet-Serra used a technique in this film that I appreciate, then became annoyed with, and then appreciated again. He is well aware of the conventional ways to get people to jump out of their seats. Traditionally, if somebody opens something like a fridge door it is usually accompanied by tense music that builds until the door is shut and somebody sinister is now hiding behind the door. In this film somebody will open a fridge door and the music will be cued but when the door is shut nobody is standing there. After reflecting on this technique I found it to be more than clever, it was very effective.

It was used to make the audience feel uncomfortable and on edge. This is how the main characters feel when Esther comes into their home. As I mentioned before they have emotionally let their guard down and invited her into their home. As Kate and the kids begin to find out more about this girl they start to fear her. They feel like they are on edge and they never feel like they can trust her. To them she is always lurking behind a door or in the shadows. They never feel safe in their own home and the audience feels that tension.

This is a very well made horror and it is well executed, that is until the third act. I was so disappointed by the final 30 minutes of this film because the first 90 were so good. The actors put so much work into grounding these character in reality only to have the film collapse in the end. There is a twist concerning Esther's back story that I completely bought, even if it is a bit of stretch (it doesn't hurt that it is loosely based on a true story). From the point this twist was revealed the film took a nose dive into the shallow end of horror cliches.

Aside from the ending this film is a smart character focused horror film that doesn't rely on blood and gore to creep you out.

I Love You, Beth Cooper

Directed by Chris Columbus

Written by Larry Doyle

Starring Hayden Panettiere, Paul Rust, and Jack Carpenter

In my review of Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince I noted that the only thing that hurt that impressive film was the fidelity to the smallest details of the source material. The makers of that film had the emotions, themes, and strength of the source material, they just tried to fit in too many of the details. In the case of I Love You, Beth Cooper, the cast and director didn't even bother with the emotions and themes of the source material they just went for the details. 

Director Chris Columbus and most of the cast members are to blame for the failure to create a funny, entertaining, and intelligent adaptation of Larry Doyle's novel of the same name. Doyle also wrote the screenplay for this film and follows his novel quite closely. I can't blame him for the failure because the wit, characters, and story are all pretty strong in the film. They are just hidden beneath bland direction and weak performances.

The novel is not a classic and the story is nothing groundbreaking, it's a simple story of what happens after "nerdy" student Denis Cooverman (Paul Rust) takes the advice of his best friend Rich Munsch, (Jack Carpenter) and uses his graduation speech to declare his long time love for Beth Cooper (Hayden Panettiere). Later that night she takes him on the adventure of his young life. The entire story is contained within a 24 hour time frame. 

As I mentioned it is a pretty simple story which certainly invokes the spirit of American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and Superbad.  These films have an energy to them that comes from playing up the almost mythological aspects of teenage years. We have all been there and have felt that excitement that comes from being young and feeling like your whole life is ahead of you. I remember feeling like any given night of my 17th year could change my whole life. That girl that I secretly loved would suddenly feel the same way after a dance at the prom. Yes, these films have that energy but they are grounded in the reality of what actually happens. 

Unlike those films this one contains almost none of that excitement. All the big teenage moments in this film feel like "movie" moments. There is very little truth to them and as a result they completely fail to bring on any emotion. It feels like there is a great distance between the intent of the lines as written and the way the actors deliver them. 

Beth Cooper is suppose to be the girl of Denis' dreams but in Panettiere's performance I could not find a reason as to why. She doesn't know how to deliver the lines from Doyle's script. They are clearly written to deconstruct Denis' perfect vision of Beth but instead she reads them as if Beth Cooper was nothing more than a bitch. The character is written to have multiple layers and a sort of awareness that her best days are behind her. There is none of that in the performance just in the lines of the screenplay. 

Beth's two best friends Cammy (Lauren London) and Treece (Lauren Storm) are supporting characters but have been given a great deal to work with even it isn't delivered. Cammy tells Rich that she plans on going to college to study acting. Upon hearing this Rich asks her why she didn't ever try out for any of the school plays to which she replies, "social preservation". This is a character that chose her desire to be popular over the desires of her heart. Either London wasn't given the direction to explore this side of the character or she doesn't have the talent. Either way the blame rest squarely on the shoulders of Chris Columbus. 

The same goes for the character of Treece who takes the whole gang to her father's cabin in the woods. The cabin exists for the sole purpose of her father's extramarital affairs. This is made clear when Treece tells everybody that she can go there whenever she wants as long as she doesn't tell her mom where the cabin is located. So when she later finds a mug that says, "World's Greatest Dad," and she remarks that she didn't buy it for him there should be a little pain and confusion in her line reading. Instead, Columbus and Storm play it up for laughs by having her deliver it as a ditzy remark. 

While these actresses deserve same blame for these poor performance there is evidence that the blame rests on Columbus and him alone. That evidence is in the character of Rich. Rich constantly quotes movie and then cites the director and release date. He also speaks in broken Spanish to make himself feel interesting all the while fighting the perceived notion that he is gay. Carpenter is able to give this character some dimension within Columbus' direction. In one scene we realize that Rich's dad doesn't like him at all, in fact upon graduation he gives him an invoice for how much he owes for his upbringing. After explaining the laborious details of the invoice to Denis Rich remarks, "I didn't think he paid that much attention to me." Again, Columbus wants to play this line for a joke but Carpenter seems to understand the pain within the joke. He is able to communicate that pain to the audience before the film moves on to some sophomoric gag.

I question whether or not Chris Columbus knows how to communicate authentic emotions on film. All his jokes fall flat as they rely too heavily on outlandish physical comedy. As mentioned all the moments that are meant to give insight into the characters are missed opportunities. The man was able to establish his career by directing  the first two Home Alone movies (the first of which was written by John Hughes) and was lucky enough two direct the first two Harry Potter films (based on his promise to JK Rowling that he would cast all British actors). He also directed Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire and Bicentennial Man and took the Broadway hit Rent from the stage to the screen. Looking at his past films it is clear that he has built his career by either working with can't miss franchises or heading star vehicles.  When given an intelligent and entertaining screenplay he can't deliver. Based on what I saw in this film he tried to rely on sight gags and how "hot" Hayden Panettiere looks. 

Had the director paid more attention to the screenplay he might have succeeded in making a funny and touching film. Perhaps in the hands of a more talented director this film could have held a candle to some of the great high school films. In the end it is a failure.

Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince

Directed by David Yates

Written by Steve Kloves

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Michael Gambon, Kim Broadbent

As the series has goes on, the Harry Potter films have grown in maturity and complexity as the story and character have dictated. The first two films were directed by Christopher Columbus and were childlike in his straight forward and simple (if not bland)  directing style. In using his vivid imagination, director Alfonso Cuaron made the third film feel like a teenager gaining a sense of style and confidence in a new found independence. The fourth film was directed by Mike Newell and felt more like an epic story of good vs evil as the main characters left their childhood for their first step into adulthood. The fifth and sixth installments have been directed by David Yates who brings a very mature and distinct style to the series. He is also the director who will be finishing out the series by adapting the seventh book into two separate films. 

The first scene of this film sets the tone for the rest of it. The film opens with Harry Potter   (Daniel Radcliffe) standing next to Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) and looking exhausted and bewildered after facing Lord Voldermort. The scene promises that the characters are entering dangerous and unsure times. Right after it a group of evil wizards destroy a bridge in London and the daily Wizard newspaper tells us innocent civilians die. The world of Harry Potter is now dangerous and frightening.

Yet, there are somethings that will endure even in the darkest of times. Even though the Wizard World is engulfed in danger there is still time for young love. I really enjoyed the coming of age subplot in this film. These characters are experiencing their first loves and in some cases, their first heartaches. I respect the fidelity that the characters have to their teenage natures in these films. 

Sadly fidelity to the source material is one of the biggest flaws of this film series. Fans of the  books want to see a faithful and complete adaptation and the filmmakers try to give it to them but it isn't always a good thing. I felt like had I never read the book I would not understand the motivations of the characters in this film. Harry, the title character,  doesn't seem to have any motivation in the film other than to be where the story needs him. Compelling characters only have a few scenes to convey an entire story's worth of motivation and emotion. All of the actors are able to do this well but only a few of them are great at it. Gambon is one of the actors who is great at it as well is Tom Felton who plays school bully Draco Malfoy. Felton brings great depth and complexity to his character as he wrestles with his decision  to betray Dumbledore and Hogwarts. It would have been easy to play this character as the cowardly bully who finds himself in over his head. Instead I felt the conflict in the character as to whether or not he wanted to become evil.

It is a credit to the actors and filmmakers that the poor adaptation from book to screenplay doesn't drag the film down. Yates may have to work from a plot checklist to satisfy the fans of the book but he has a deliberate vision for the film. There are dark clouds gathering through out the entire film which foreshadows the storm that is about to break in the lives of the characters. One great sequence features all the main characters preparing for the life changing events that are about to occur. It looks and feels like the calm before the store. 

The film is beautifully shot by cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel. There is one scene that takes places in a wheat field in the dead of night that is gorgeous. The stark contrast between the color of the wheat and the black of the night sky is incredible. 

There is plenty to admire in this film but I felt like I was missing a complete story. I believe that it all comes down to the filmmakers trying to be too faithful to the source material. The fans of the book will always have the books for the entire story. When it comes to the films I wish the filmmakers weren't so afraid to adapt the material from the written page to the screen. It's a totally different media and I wish they gave themselves the freedom to use it to tell the story. I'm hoping that the splitting of the last book into two films will give them the chance to tell the story without all the clutter of a completely faithful adaptation.  It is possible to be faithful to the story and characters without being so restricted by the details. 

Bruno

Directed by Larry Charles

Starring Sacha Baron Cohen and Gustaf Hammarsten

Written by Sacha Baron Cohen and Anthony Hines

I am a great admirer of Sacha Baron Cohen. I really respect his ability to use outrageous comedy to make social commentary. By playing outrageous characters he somehow gets ordinary people to do and say unbelievable things. For instance in his newest film Bruno Cohen is able to get the parents of toddlers to agree to get their children to lose ten pounds before a photo shoot, dress up as Nazi's, and operate heavy machinery. My mouth was agape and not because of what Cohen was doing but because of what ordinary people were doing or willing to do. Though, to be fair Cohen does some outrageous things as well, but he is playing a character. 

That character is Bruno an Austrian fashion guru who longs to be the most famous pop star from Austria since Hitler (his words not mine). To that end he attempts to first become a film and T.V. star and when that fails he tries to bring peace to the world. Really the plot of this mockumentary is string together his on camera stunts. 

Though the plot is a little biting. Essentially the story is about somebody moving to L.A. to achieve celebrity status no matter what the cost to their identity. When Bruno attempts to achieve celebrity status by doing charity work he approaches to women who run a charity PR firm. The women appear to be in their mid-twenties and are both wearing cheetah print shirts. They offer him advice on which charities are "in" and get him good press. They both seem to think that Darfur is somewhere near Iraq. This scene's shallowness made me shudder as I imagined how often this scene plays out in earnest in reality. 

Some of the stunts are hilarious, many of them shocking, and in some cases disturbing. This is where Cohen really shows that he has commitment to the character. He puts himself in some very graphic and disturbing situations and to be honest it became a little off putting. I respect his commitment but there were times in which people on screen were doing such graphic things it took me out of the movie.  As a result the film never really "hooked me," I always felts like I was simply observing them film. All the content whether it was graphic in nature or revealing something ugly in a person left me feeling a little...gross.

I imagine it might have been a little difficult to bring Bruno to theaters after Cohen's last creation, Borat got the big screen treatment (all of Cohen's characters were featured on Da Ali G Show). The premise of that film was more or less the same except Borat was a foreign journalist from Kazakhstan. While watching Bruno I didn't feel the freshness that I felt while watching Borat. In that film Cohen did and said some shocking things but he was able to create a more realized story. Most people were unaware of Borat, so he was able to interact with more people and create a richer story. The odd thing was that even though Borat was rather outrageous it also had some moments of genuine heart. I didn't get that same feeling with Bruno and I feel like it was because Cohen had to go so far over the line that it was hard to relate to the character. 

Oddly enough I found the graphic sexual material less offensive than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I expected that material in this film, but it had no place in the kid's movie about robots. In this film it was disturbing but it sort of served a purpose in the grander scheme of things. In Transformers it was gratuitous and disturbing for a whole other reason.

So yes, I do respect the creator of Bruno, but I can't say that I enjoyed the film. I laughed and fairly hard at times, but that was it. At the end of the day I knew what he was trying to say about society I just didn't feel connected to how he went about saying it. I really hope that Cohen follows his tradition of retiring his characters after the films so he can move on to new things. I am fairly excited to see what he will be doing next. 

The Hurt Locker

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

Starring Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Owen Eldrigde

Written by Mark Boal

The Hurt Locker is one of the most intense movie watching experiences I have ever had. If it weren't such a cliche' I would use a metaphor about explosives to describe this film about a United States bomb squad working in Iraq during the current conflict. Director Kathryn Bigelow demonstrates extraordinary film making ability as she adds more and more tension to this film while firmly grounding it in reality.  She slowly increases the tension through out certain scenes which only serves to build an almost unbearable amount of tension. She takes her time and doesn't rely on action movie cliches. The situations in which the characters find themselves become more intense and more emotionally complicated as they go on.  

This film might have all the elements of an action film, and by all rights it is an action film, but it relies on character rather than spectacle to tell the story. The main character Staff Sergeant William James, played by Jeremy Renner, is an expert bomb technician and he is addicted to it. He actually craves  it and not because he is suicidal or anything like that, it's all that he knows.  He flat out disrespects death. He refuses to even acknowledge that it is a part of the equation of what he does. He knows it's a possibility but he just doesn't deal with it at all. He is a very compassionate character and shows great deal of respect and adoration to his fellow soldiers and some of the Iraqis, but none to death. Everything he does is to disrespect death right down to the fact that he is a chain smoker.

Jeremy Renner is fantastic in this role. He brings such personality and warmth to this disturbed individual. He is introduce while sitting in a dark room, listening to  heavy metal, and smoking a cigarette and from that moment on I knew the character. All it took was that one scene to bring him to life. It would have been easy for Renner to play this character as a closed off insensitive action hero but he makes him real. 

His fellow actors are just as great. Anthony Mackie plays Sergeant JT Sanborn and he is the voice of reason in the squad. He is just trying to keep James and fellow soldier Specialist Owen Eldrigde, played by Brian Geraghty, alive. Eldridge is a younger version of James. He is new to war and at the open of the film has his first exposure to the dark side of it. It shakes him to the core and the through out the film you wonder is he going to end up like Sanborn, a sane and rational person, or like James. 

Director Bigelow sets her film in reality. All the situations seem possible because of everything that she puts into it. As mentioned the characters are real and fully fleshed out. She wisely chooses to use handheld cameras but is able to do it in such a way that it feels natural. Everything she does is to make the audience feel like they are embedded with this squad. Which is appropriate given the fact that screenwriter Mark Boal was embedded with an actual bomb squad in Iraq to research this story.

One detail of this film that I consider to be a master stroke is that Bigelow uses four cameo appearance to great effect. Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pierce, Evangeline Lily, and David Morse all appear in this film. Usually when a recognizable face appears in a film as an audience member you more or less assume that they will be okay. Bigelow understands the audience will feel this way and as result they are not all safe. I'm not going to say what happens to whom but I will say that some make it and some aren't as lucky. This is slightly jarring for the audience and played  to great effect, like everything else in this film. 

In many ways this is the polar opposite of Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Where Michael Bay uses explosions  to amuse, Bigelow uses them to tell her story. Where the characters in Bay's film are flat and their personalities are nearly non existent, the characters in this story are real. When Bay uses handheld cameras it is chaotic and frustrating. When Bigelow uses handheld cameras it is clear and engaging. 

In a summer in which most of the films that have been released are adequate at best and mundane at worse, The Hurt Locker stands out as a fantastic film. I would be surprised if this film is not on my top ten list come the end of the year.  

Public Enemies

Public Enemies

Directed by Michael Mann

Written by Ronan Bennett and Michael Mann

Starring Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, and Marion Cotillard

During my first summer in Chicago I went to go see Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle at the Biograph theater on Lincoln. At the time I was completely unaware that it was the famous theater where the Lady in Red betrayed John Dillinger to the feds. When I found out I was amazed and a little disappointed  that I didn't go see a more appropriate film at such a location. When I was growing up my Grandma Collins would tell me stories about the early days of the FBI and Dillinger was certainly mentioned. 

Dillinger was a gangster and folk hero and the site of his death is now a recognized National Historic site.  He was a criminal, killer, and robber and yet he was adored. He was one of many gangsters that despite their exploits were celebrated and obviously still have a draw today. I'm not sure I understand why but I'm certainly not immune to it. 

Michael Mann's film, Public Enemies explores the public fascination with the gangsters of days gone by.  The film is set in when those days are waning and the public perception of these gangsters is going from adoration to resentment. At the open of the film John Dillinger, played by Johnny Depp, is an exciting and daring outlaw stealing from banks but not from the pockets of the customers. His exploits helped galvanize the Federal Bureau of Investigation to become a force against crime. In the film the task of taking down Dillinger is given to Melvin Purvis, played by Christian Bale. 

The conflict between the ways of the gangsters and the feds is played out between Dillinger and Purvis, but it is not personal. It comes down to Purvis's duty and Dillinger's nature. Dillinger loves the thrill of the gangster life and will keep on going until he can't go any longer.  He spent ten years of his life in prison and now that he is out he wants to enjoy it all. Purvis is a dedicated law man but what it will take to bring Dillinger down does not come natural to him. He is over his head because it is not in his nature to be cruel. The FBI is young and Dillinger is an embarrassment to director J. Edgar Hoover, played in this film by Billy Crudup. The heat comes down on Purivs and he is forced to betray his conscience to stop Dillinger. He is forced to resort to brutal and cold tactics to bring him down.

Through out the film it becomes clear to Dillinger that he is a dying breed. in the beginning he has the support of the public and he thrives on it. He tells an associate that he won't do a kidnapping because the public doesn't like it, they are fine with bank robbing. When they start to... well get bored of him he loses that support. At first he is able to outsmart and out run the local and state police officers but when the FBI  starts to trail him,with all their new techniques and technology, he is out of his league. Finally, even the criminals begin to leave his side. At first they love John Dillinger but when they find that he is bad for the new and lucrative ways to make money they give him the cold shoulder. 

Michael Mann seems to be very interested in exploring ideas through his stories and his characters. Through out this review I realize that I have been fascinated with the ideas that he explored in this film. They are incredibly interesting but that doesn't necessarily make the characters engaging. Mann seems to be interested in Dillinger as an idea not so much as a person. He uses this film to wonder what it would have been like to be Dillinger but doesn't quite get into his shoes. It's all exploration without a great realization. As a result I felt the same way about the character. This isn't a bad thing but as an audience member it doesn't really invite you to invest in the characters. 

Would I have preferred Michael Mann to explore the characters more than his ideas and themes? No, I really enjoyed this film. I think if he wanted us to embrace the character then we would have cheered him on during his crimes. I don't think Mann wanted the audience to enjoy what Dillinger did but wanted to explore why his life of crime is so fascinating. The gun shots wounds in this film are some what disturbing and I appreciated that touch. All the fun that Dillinger was having was negated by bloody wounds and dire consequences. 

Still, I'm left wondering why we enjoy our outlaws so much in this country. We don't anymore but there was a time in which we celebrated those who fought against authority. Maybe there is something inherently American about wanting to buck against the establishment, we were born in rebellion after all. We love our outlaws in this country and the best of them become folk heroes. I'm not sure of the reason but I do know that whenever I walk pass the Biograph theater I always think about John Dillinger.