It doesn’t have to make sense

Masters of the camera: Joel and Ethan Coen with George Clooney, looking at footage from Burn After Reading.

Can the Coen Brothers do any wrong? As if last year was not a big enough year for them with the success of No Country for Old Men (just ask Tommy Lee Jones, who is suing the company who produced No Country for Old Men for royalties he claimed he never received from the unanticipated success of the film), they took on another small-scale but high-concept film starring a whole host of awesome actors, including John Malkovich, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Frances McDormand [Fargo], Tilda Swinton [Michael Clayton], Richard Jenkins [I Heart Huckabees] and J.K. Simmons [Juno]. I’m talking about Burn After Reading, a film with a clever and well-written script and a very controlled set. I say ‘controlled’ because I like the way the Coen Brothers didn’t hesitate to rein in their actors when necessary, or give them complete freedom when they do decide to go all out. 

I won’t even attempt to summarize the film, only because the whole point of it is in the hilarity that all the events that occur are so loony and unrelated and comically stupid that it doesn’t make any sense. The film is basically like a series of unfortunate events–a six degress of separation kind of thing where one stupid act leads to another. All I can say without giving taking anything away from the cleverness of the script is that John Malkovich’s character Osborne Cox (the name is emblazoned in my head after Brad Pitt’s character repeats it over and over again) is fired (or more accurately, demoted) from his post in the CIA and he goes into a depression and decides to write a memoir about all the exploits he participated in while being an agent for in the intelligence agency. His uptight wife Mrs. Cox, played with so much precision by Tilda Swinton, thinks this is absolutely stupid and contemplates divorcing him while having an affair with a former Treasury Department official, played by George Clooney. Mrs. Cox is advised by her lawyer to find as much incriminating evidence on her husband as possible to ensure that she gets a hefty divorce settlement. She finds her husband’s files, with all the CIA information, and saves it onto a disk, which she somehow loses and which ends up in the hands of some really desperate people (in this case, Frances McDormand’s and Brad Pitt’s characters, employees at the hilarious 24 Hour Fitness parody HardBodies). Said desperate people, in turn, decide to blackmail Osborne Cox with the disk, and this leads to all sorts of ridiculous trouble.

This kind of film is difficult to pull off, only because the delivery needs to be on-point that the audience doesn’t even care if everything will make sense in the end. No one actor stood out in this film, because the whole cast was just terrific. George Clooney was, as usual, charismatic and well, you know, George Clooney. I liked that during the intense scenes he shed off the suavity and was actually really commanding and dramatic. Tilda Swinton was just the epitome of the cold, hard bitch in this movie, and she pulled it off with so much precision.

"Osborne Cox...I thought you would be worried...about the security...of your shit..."

Brad Pitt was just awesome in this movie. One would wonder if he made frequent trips to fitness centers to observe how personal trainers worked, because he was so on-point in his portrayal that you almost forget that this is the same guy who has played intense, dramatic roles in Babel and Legends of the Fall. You know when someone is a great actor when they can just step outside of themselves and be someone completely outrageous. There was one point in the film where he says the line, “Osborne Cox, I thought you might be worried…about the security…of your shit…” and he says it with so much of the character ingrained in him that it was just absolutely hilarious. Frances McDormand was a star in this movie as a HardBodies employee who is so dissatisfied with her appearance she is desperate to get plastic surgery to improve it. She was kooky, snarling and completely pathetic (in a good way!) and I am so glad that the Coen Brothers brought her on board again in this film. 

And of course, you gotta give it up to John Malkovich. No one could have played the deliriously maniacal Osborne Cox but him. Even as an ex-CIA operative with a major drinking problem and a cheating wife, he managed to make the character come off as indignant somehow that things were happening to him. He was always in command in every scene, and he definitely reminded everyone that he is such a versatile actor. In the opening scenes of the film when he gets demoted and is told it is because he has a ‘drinking problem’, he sneers back, “I have a drinking problem? You’re a fucking mormon! Next to you, we all have a drinking problem!” I almost fell off my seat at that.

One of the things that also added to the comedy of the film was the kooky music that accompanied the scenes. It did very well to set the atmosphere for the audience, and to make us relate to the characters. The characters in the film start to get so increasingly paranoid about their actions that they feel like there is some sort of giant conspiracy, and the kooky music helps translate this state of mind to the audience. I think that all of actors had to throw caution to the wind for this movie, and I applaud the Coen Brothers for their mastery of direction to be able to pull off a complicated yet deliberately nonsensical film. I know of no other film whose main point was it being nonsensical, and yet managing to be funny. Both thumbs up to the Coen Brothers and to the cast; definitely one of my favorite new films.

Jesus rocks you

I remember the first time I saw Hamlet 2’s trailer my gut reaction was: “Steve Coogan is a major buffoon.” The straight-out-of-the-theater reaction? “Steve Coogan is a major, major buffoon,” –and I mean that as a compliment. Only someone who is brazenly self-deprecating and yet staunchly self-confident could pull off something so utterly shameless. The film, starring Steve Coogan [Hot Fuzz, Happy Endings], Catherine Keener, Elisabeth Shue and Amy Poehler is so outrageously politically incorrect, that it almost seems like the whole movie was wrapped around this very idea. It felt as if there was no real gist, and it felt almost as if a bunch of comics wrote down some of their very best jokes and figured, “Hey, let’s make a movie around these jokes.” Now, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because the jokes are good. The problem was that it wasn’t very cohesive and oftentimes got a little carried away with itself.

The story revolves around Dana Marschz [Steve Coogan], a washed-up ex-commercial actor who now teaches drama at a high school in Tucson, Arizona. He, and two drama geeks, are the only ones at the high school who are passionate about theater, and when due to lack of funding the drama class is in danger of being cancelled, Marschz decides to put on a play to prove the administration wrong. The film started off pretty loudly and obnoxiously funny, with a commercial for genital herpes featuring Coogan parading through a park arm-in-arm with a woman. See for yourself!

See what I mean? The film is packed with a lot of schtick but also a lot of crude humor, something we can expect from the writers of South Park. ”I’ve been praying for more racial understanding, but I still get nervous around ethnics,” one character says, whilst fretting whether or not she could get along with her Latinos classmates. The film is basically Dead Poets Society meets Waiting for Guffman, and is more of the latter than the former. Dead Poets Society because it attempts to inject some sentimental you’re-the-best-teacher-in-the-world crap coupled with you’re-the-best-students-in-the-world crap while trying to remain hilarious. The play that Marschz puts on is entitled Hamlet 2, whose premise revolves around Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who goes back in time to prevent the deaths of, well, everyone in the story. He meets Jesus A.D. and asks for advice. Oh, and did I mention Hamlet 2 the play is a musical, featuring the very catchy “Rock Me, Sexy Jesus”? See below.

Anyway, the film was definitely hilarious, and there were times when I needed to seriously think of something depressing or else I would just keep on chuckling. Catherine Keener was particularly awesome in this movie, and I’m reminded why I like her. I liked her in Being John Malkovich and I think she’s a really good actress. It’s great to see her do comedy, because she does have a knack for it. A veteran comedienne who graced the film as well was Amy Poehler, who played a fast-talking, hard-dealing lawyer who tries to prevent the shutdown of the play. 

One thing that got me though, and I thought this was a little interesting, was the racial stereotyping in this movie. Yes, they made fun of the racial stereotypes, but some of the punchlines played out in an interesting fashion and raised some questions about what the writers could have possibly been thinking during the conception of the film. For instance, the one that stood out to me was when an aggressive, perpetually angry Latino student (who introduced himself to Coogan’s character as Haywood Jablome (get it? Hey would you…)] tells Marschz that his parents won’t allow him to participate in the play. Marschz responds by saying that he was going to march right on up to the student’s parents and demand an explanation, and didn’t care if it was “dangerous”, implying that this aggressive Latino kid was somehow from a gang-infested neighborhood. When Marschz meets the kid’s parents, they turn out to have a humongous house, and they are both accomplished (one is a writer, another an artist) and eloquent, which makes Marschz super relieved. Basically, they are white people in brown people skin. How this came across to me was that they seemed to be implying that the aggressive Latino kid was aggressive and therefore had to be from a gang or something with drug-dealing parents or whatever, and then ultimately introducing the parents as “normal”, which was learned, rich, spoke perfect english, and were elitists and literary snobs, really–like I said, which is characteristically a white people thing. It seemed to imply that the desirable personality or overall characteristics of a person or parents in general were those of white people. 

I’m not objecting to the humor in this “joke”, but I found it really interesting how this is portrayed in the film, and how it possibly reflects American social values about race relations. For instance, it would be interesting to ask someone who was white to describe what would be the good traits they would consider in another person, regardless of race. I would bet that the more assimiliated the person into American society (for instance, if they spoke without a thick accent, or if they were informed about mainstream ideas), the better they appear to the white person. 

Anyway, I thought I would just point that out. 

But all seriousness aside, I thought the movie was hilarious. The musical at the end was okay, didn’t quite see what the funny was in the concept of the musical, but I guess the appeal was the idea of “rock me sexy Jesus”.

100 reasons why you stepped into the theater

Sometimes it’s a trailer, other times it’s an actor or actress - but the one thing that can actually stand out for a movie is its poster. A poster is important because you’ll see it when you walk out of the theater. If it catches your eye, it’s successful. If not, they need to go back to the drawing board. Trailers may ultimately be a final basis for whether someone will decide to see a film, but a poster relies solely on the gut reaction of the viewer. Some really outstanding movie posters that definitely made their mark (in no particular order):

Knight over Gotham

I know some of you have been wondering where my Dark Knight review is after it’s been exactly a month since the film came out, so I am happy to report that it is finally here. I just came back from seeing it for a second time, and I have to say, everything is much clearer and better appreciated the second time around. Since I had gone to the premiere of the film, everything was pretty much hype, excitement and a whole lot of blurry at first. Of course, blurry as the first encounter with Knight may have been, nothing can make you forget Heath Ledger’s maniacal laugh, or Aaron Eckhart’s intense performance, or Christian Bale swooping down on Gotham’s goons in his newly-revamped Batsuit. There were so many awesome moments in this film, so I wanted to take my time before I dissected it; making sure that I took everything in and understood the message that the film intended to convey.

To be or not to be? That is the question that plagues Batman/Bruce Wayne, as he wonders whether he should submit to the whims of the Joker.

I had gone into The Dark Knight with a standard so high I thought it would be absolutely devastating if it didn’t deliver, and I’m sure everyone was on the same page. Starting with the viral marketing done for the film as early as July of last year at Comic-Con, it’s really no wonder how Knight has gotten so much buzz. Due credit can be given to Batman Begins, which was an excellent film, and whose teaser ending can be credited for getting the buzz ball rolling on the second installment. As soon as people got out of the theaters, they were already wondering who would play the Joker, an iconic character not only from comic book history but from fiction history. When I first found out that Heath Ledger was going to be playing the Joker, I have to admit I was a little skeptical. The last movie I had seen from Heath Ledger was probably Brokeback Mountain. So you can’t really blame me for wondering if this guy could indeed play the disastrous Joker. Of course, as I thought about it even more, and having recalled Ledger’s intense performance in Monster’s Ball as well as The Patriot, I began to think that maybe he was the perfect match after all.

It can be said that Heath Ledger was the sole reason people came out to see this movie. Some people came out for reasons that are not so much in regards to how he would play the role, but out of curiosity at the last tango of this really talented actor. The first time I saw the film, I remember not feeling elated as soon as the credits started to roll. I remember after Batman Begins, I was tingling with excitement. I remember bubbling with feedback as I left the theater, thrilled at the prospect of a second Batman movie with Christopher Nolan at the helm. After The Dark Knight had ended, instead, I remember being overwhelmed with a feeling of loss. It is tough to get through a film when one of the actors, who lives and breathes with so much emotion and so much vigor on the screen, is actually not with us anymore. But Heath Ledger was so brilliant, that he actually made you forget that during the 2 hours and 30 minutes that you’re sitting there, watching his Joker unfold.

Before I get into the specifics of the characters, let me get to a breakdown of the story for all those who need a brief refresher. The Dark Knight opens with a different kind of Gotham City. Batman’s nightly round-ups of the goons in the city have forced the mob and the rest of Gotham’s notorious to vacate the streets for fear of encountering the caped crusader. For once, Gotham City’s streets are clean, but this is only the calm before the storm. With this newfound quiet, The Joker, a new villain, bursts onto the scene, taking Gotham City by storm with his clamor for Batman to reveal his identity. The Joker’s goal: a bit complicated, really, but let me try to break it down. The Joker does not want Batman dead. The Joker is a walking objection of society and its “rules”. The Joker represents anarchy, chaos and social upheaval, in the sense that he does not care for rules, which sets him apart from Batman. He also looks at society differently, viewing people as mere cattle who follow the rules that have been set for them by the wealthy and powerful. He thinks that people are rotten to the core, and that when worse comes to worst, “these people will eat each other”. He is trying to prove to Batman that the people he is desperately trying to save are the same people who will turn on him in the end and call him a “freak”. Enter Harvey Dent, Gotham City’s district attorney, dubbed the city’s White Knight for his vigilant pursuit of the notorious. Dent wants the scum behind bars, but he wants to do it the right way. He doesn’t like the idea of Detective Gordon working with Batman outside of the law to pursue the mob, but he finds that it is the only way to get things done. He is suspicious of Gordon’s men, because he is convinced that the mob is powerful enough to buy their way into the ranks of the police. Dent, the Joker and Batman all intertwine in this web of social dissection. It’s an interesting kind of dynamic, and one which sets up a whole lot of trouble for Batman, who is now faced with a villain who doesn’t want to kill him, but only wants to prove a point, even when proving this point means killing innocent people along the way. He wants to badly to just throw in the towel and leave it all up to Dent, but he can’t bring himself to submit to a terrorist. So Batman is faced with a dilemma: kill the Joker and prove to people that he is indeed just some masked vigilante who prowls the streets and doesn’t care who lives or dies? Or turn himself in so that the killing will stop, even if it means the mob and other criminals would once again plague Gotham?

Harvey Dent is convinced the only just thing in life is chance: so he flips a coin.

It’s an interesting problem that Christopher Nolan and co-writer (and brother) Jonathan Nolan try to weave in the most elaborate “superhero” movie yet. It’s really interesting how this is probably the only serious superhero movie that tackles a lot of big issues. Are people really rotten to the core? How do you fight for justice when the people who are supposed to uphold justice are the ones breaking the rules? How much power should one man have, no matter how good the intentions? A lot of people have said the backdrop of Knight is filled with so much political allusion that it is tough to concentrate on the actual story relating to Batman. I, however, disagree vehemently. I thought the story was seamlessly written, and I applaud the writers for having the balls to tackle such huge issues within the context of a fictional hero battling crime. No matter how heavy the messages, this is still a superhero movie. It had no need for CGI and elaborate green screen effects like other superhero movies like to overemploy, but that is what makes it special. This movie does not belittle its viewers. It knows that its viewers are intelligent and capable of independent thought, and so it throws all these questions at the viewer, with the utmost faith that someone will get the message right.

Let’s go to the meat and potatoes of the film. Christian Bale, although obviously the star of the movie, kind of takes a backseat on the Aaron Eckhart-Heath Ledger train, because these two actors were so brilliant, it was kind of easy to get lost in their performances. Bale’s Bruce Wayne/Batman was a little lost and hesitant, and perhaps this was the intended goal. Batman meant to “inspire people”, and instead he gets the mob growing desperate enough to employ the Joker, and civilians trying to do the same thing he does: donning suits and patrolling the streets thinking they can clean up Gotham. Bale’s performance at this point, may be precise, yet not as powerful, only because his material was a little more tame compared to what Eckhart and Ledger got. At this point, Batman is confused as to how to act. He doesn’t know if he wants to keep parading the streets because no matter how much he fights, people still consider him a vigilante, and he seems to be encouraging the wrong kind of ‘acting’. He doesn’t know if he wants to give in to the Joker, even if it means surrendering to the very scum he set out to fight. It is a hefty predicament that Bale finds himself in, and he does it well, almost even effortlessly. In Batman Begins, it was all about becoming Batman, so it’s only right that in the second film Bale performs the role almost to a T. A lot of people clamored at his gruff voice when in the Batsuit, but I thought it was fine. I mean, people aren’t stupid. If he didn’t go around altering his voice, people would know it was Bruce Wayne, especially Detective Gordon, who the Bat hangs out with a lot. So to the people who complain about the voice, think about why it was needed, and drop it.

Moving on to newcomer Maggie Gyllenhaal, who takes over Katie Holmes in the role of attorney Rachel Dawes. I thought she did a much better job than Holmes as the high-powered, no-nonsense Dawes, although I wish there was more substance in her character. Although she did get a decent amount of face time in the movie, I wish there had been a little bit more depth to the character, although the final “letter” she wrote showcased that a little bit. I think it was definitely one of the most shocking twists I’ve ever seen in a movie, but only so, considering Nolan (who directed the complete mindfuck that is Memento) was at the helm. But it was a good surprise, only because Dawes’ character didn’t really have anywhere to go at that point. She couldn’t just keep hanging around, waiting for Bruce Wayne to stop being Batman. I thought her fate in the story was well-written and it did well for the overall big picture.

On to Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. At first I was skeptical as well when I heard he was going to take over such a complex character as Dent/Two-Face. If you’ve read The Long Halloween, you know that Two-Face is pretty complex. Eckhart, who I only remember from dramas like Erin Brockovich and romantic comedies like No Reservations, actually surprised me by employing a little bit of his Thank You for Smoking character Nick Naylor into his Harvey Dent. I was pleasantly surprised to see what he brought to the table, and I definitely think he held his own against Bale and Ledger. I was actually surprised that Two-Face was not set up to be the third installment’s villain. Once again, this decision was ultimately sensible and I felt like it worked well given the context of the whole film. Harvey Dent was Gotham’s last hope, it seemed, and he was like a beacon of light for Gotham. Because of this, it was only understandable why the Joker, an anarchist, would want to tear down Gotham’s last force of hope. I thought the transformation from Dent to Two-Face worked well, and I thought Eckhart executed it perfectly.

Even though there will be no encore for Heath Ledger, audiences around the world will forever remember his Joker.

Now of course, we are down to the man of the hour, Heath Ledger. This movie would not have been the same without him. It fills me with a great sense of loss, especially in the end when the Joker says, “You and me, I think we are destined to do this forever.” To me, this line was like a hanging invitation for the Joker to come back in the movies to come, but since Ledger is gone, I would hate to have someone else even attempt to replace him as the Joker. Not only would it be in bad taste, but absolutely no one would do the role justice as he did. Ledger brought something completely different to the character. He understood the Joker not as some fancy loon wanting to blow stuff up and cause a ruckus. This guy had been to hell and back. Whatever back story he had set up in his mind about the Joker, it was dark and dreary where he was. To be able to play a man with absolutely no faith in the human condition, no rules, and a capacity for destruction, must have been exhausting on Ledger. To play this guy, you have to put everything you know in the back of your mind, and just go with it. Ledger’s laugh, alone, was enough to give me shivers. I thought he was terrifying when he needed to be, comical when he needed to be (especially at the hospital, in that ridiculous nurse’s outfit), and even theatrical when he needed to be. This guy became the Joker, so you can see how committed he was to the role, and once again, it reminds you of how tremendous of an actor he was.

Now, since this is a Batman movie, I can’t let this post end without listing some of my favorite moments. I love the transformation from the Batmobile to the BatPod. Absolutely awesome. I remember thinking at the time when it happened, “That is absolutely sick.” And mind you, I never use the word “sick”. Of course, one of the more memorable scenes was when that semi flipped over in the middle of the street. When I was in the theater, I could hear everyone gasp in awe when that happened. See, no fancy explosions, no Tom Cruise sliding through to save the day. Just some good ol’ car flipping could elicit a gasp from a riveted audience. Another awesome moment was when Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox) tells this lawyer who finds out that Bruce Wayne is Batman and wants to be paid for his secrecy: “Let me get this straight. You think your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who beats criminals to a pulp with his bare hands…and your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck.”

Another one of my favorite scenes? The magic trick scene. I’m sure you all know what I am talking about. And the scene with Heath Ledger at the hospital was just absolutely ridiculous. And of course, my favorite moment in the entire movie, is when Heath Ledger blows our fucking minds when he snarls, “WHY SO SERIOUS?” He is so terrifying, and so precise and in command of the screen, that you just can’t take your eyes off of him even when you want to.

This movie just set the standard for the next superhero movies to come. I know that Zack Snyder has aspired to recreate the same atmosphere of the Batman movies with his much-anticipated Watchmen, and we know Iron Man 2 is already slated for success next year. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the film was perfect. I could have done without the whole use of the sonar thing, and I thought the fight scenes were incredibly lame this time around, but this could have been mostly due to the nature of the story. The Joker doesn’t really have any swift martial artsy moves, he’s just a man who jumps into the fray with a lead pipe. So the fight scenes kind of have that same feel, kind of a gritty, fist-fight-in-the-alley sort of feel, much unlike Batman Begins. But no matter, it remains to be one hell of a movie, and it has broken box office records and proven to nonbelievers that superhero movies can rule a diverse audience and can be taken seriously. But don’t take them too seriously. After all, you wouldn’t want someone snarling “WHY SO SERIOUS?!” at you, would you?

A Thundering comeback

The untouchable trio of funny: Jack Black, Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. lead the cast of Tropic Thunder.

There’s a certain point in an actor’s career when audiences walk out of theaters scratching their heads and thinking, “What the hell is this guy doing making this movie?” For Jack Black, I thought it was The Holiday. And let’s face it: he didn’t have to do Walk Hard. Although I can’t really knock Jack Black, because I thought he was good in Margot at the Wedding. For Ben Stiller, it was The Heartbreak Kid and Along Came Polly. Ben Stiller is so much more talented than what we see in The Heartbreak Kid. I keep trying to remind myself that this is the same guy who penned Reality Bites, what I consider a really great (albeit overly yuppie) movie. And of course, there’s Robert Downey Jr., who had such a great year with Iron Man. This guy came out of nowhere, after being in a bunch of nobody roles [Gothika, The Shaggy Dog] after his personal recovery and slowly built his career up. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang showcased how awesome an actor he is, and how he has such a good sense of humor.  Zodiac was his official big movie back as a serious actor, and so was Good Night and Good Luck. But when Iron Man hit theaters, he officially became the most sought-after actor on the planet. I’m sure imdb.com can give you all that information, so I’ll get straight to the point: Tropic Thunder was awesome.

I went into the film expecting mostly what you normally expect from a Jack Black movie: a lot of obnoxious loud noises and the occasional funny line here or there. I mostly went to see it because I was interested to see how Robert Downey Jr. was going to pull off playing a black man in what seems to be the most outrageous role ever written. Needless to say, this was the most outrageous movie of the season. From the get-go, which comprised of trailers strewn together specially for the movie [Satan's Alley with Robert Downey Jr. and Tobey Maguire playing gay monks was particularly memorable], the film was just laugh-out-loud funny. I like how it makes fun of actors and the film industry in general–which is mostly what the film is all about: a parody of the hilarity that is movie-making.

Robert Downey Jr. plays Kirk Lazarus, a parody of Russell Crowe and method actors in general. Lazarus is a “serious” actor who is so serious about nailing the roles he plays that he undergoes pigment-altering surgery to turn him into a black man. I swear, I sometimes forgot that I was watching Robert Downey Jr., and I consider that a successful job on his part. He was so convincing that I swear you think you’re looking at a completely different actor. I can’t imagine being on the set of this movie, having to stifle your giggles whenever he spouted his “motherfuckers!”

Jack Black was also pretty funny in the film. Although I am not a big fan of his, I thought he held his own in this movie. His role is a parody of Eddie Murphy–an actor who only knows how to do gross-out funny films. Add a little drug abuse problem, and you score.

Ben Stiller (who wrote and directed this film with pal Justin Theroux) brought me back to his Zoolander days, and completely went all out in this film. According to an interview Stiller, Black and Downey Jr. made with Entertainment Weekly, Stiller recalls how long it took to make this movie, script-wise, and I would assume so. It seems like such a brilliant concept: a bunch of high-profile actors take on an “epic movie”, but can’t seem to get along, so they are forced into a dangerous real-life situation so they can act. However, with characters that are so individually rich like what you have in this film, getting the right actor to play the part is key. I don’t think this movie would have scored had Danny McBride not been in it, or had Matthew McConaughey not been cast [brilliantly] as a savvy Hollywood agent hellbent on making his client [Ben Stiller] a star. Tropic Thunder has so many awesome moments that showcase each of these actors in full, but at the same time, it is not all about physical comedy, which I am so grateful for, and partly why I think it scores a lot. It would be easy to just go the Will Ferrell route and look like a complete doofus while doing something you would only see on Jackass, but they chose not to do that. Stiller and Theroux (who is reportedly slated to whip up the script for the much-buzzed-about Iron Man sequel) made sure the lines were on-point and outrageous, so that it didn’t just seem like a star-studded cast grabbing at straws.

To Stiller’s credit, it must have been a lot of work to handle such a star-studded cast. But I think it all boiled down to how much they all liked him. With this movie, Stiller reportedly ran a tight ship, and I think that’s really commendable, considering how he needs to be likeable, funny, yet at the same time, command the respect of his castmates and crew as their director. This movie is kind of in the realm of Apatow (Judd Apatow, that is) because Stiller shows what Hollywood circles he runs with by casting most of his pals. But when I heard Tom Cruise was going to be in it, and when I heard how outrageous his role was, I was sold.

Tom Cruise gets into character, donning a fat suit for his role in Tropic Thunder.

I mean, Tom Cruise has been having a really tough time in his career. After the whole couch-jumping extravaganza on Oprah, and the Scientology bit plus the war of words with Brooke Shields, the public perception of him is pretty bleak. Most people would consider this guy humorless and uptight. I used to be completely smitten with Tom Cruise (come on, we’ve all seen Top Gun), because he was a brilliant actor and pretty gorgeous too. But then he just started doing the same roles over and over again. Minority Report, Mission: Impossible III…even his supposed “breakthrough” acting in Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky seemed a little too tame for me. I wanted to see a Tom Cruise that just completely immersed himself in a role; a Tom Cruise who completely forgot that he was the Tom Cruise and just went with it. I wanted to see a Tom Cruise that didn’t care how he looked or how he presented himself. And damn did he deliver in Tropic Thunder. I think he just about stole the show with his impression of a Hollywood bigwig with a foul mouth and gross chest hair. I think this role in this movie was just the thing he needed to launch himself back into the fray.

Actors aside, let’s talk more about the movie. I thought the concept was interesting and the delivery was on-point. There were scenes that were just unbelievably gross, but they were still funny in the context of what-if-we-made-a-war-movie-and-thought-a-real-head-was-a-fake-one. You could really see the parodies in the film and it just shows how the actors themselves have a sense of humor about their line of work. Even for a movie that is at its core a comedy, there was some pretty decent action in it. A lot of explosions, some stellar shooting scenes, and I can’t forget a scene where Robert Downey Jr. is dressed up as a rice farmer and he whips out his guns at the enemy and goes, “I’m a lead farmer, motherfucker!” Some really great lines, and just about everything is made fun of. There were times when I just shook my head and thought, “Dude, this line shouldn’t be funny but it just is,” because of how well they were delivered. And of course, some credit should go to the prop, make-up and costume people for just how believable the whole thing was, especially the blood and guts, and of course, for making Tom Cruise look fat and gross.

So all in all, I think this is a movie about celebrating comebacks. It’s a celebration of the comeback of the kind of comedy that doesn’t involve Will Ferrell or Steve Carell. It’s a celebration of a good partnership between Theroux and Stiller as writers, and of course, between the cast members. And of course, it’s the comeback of a self-deprecating Tom Cruise, in what I am sure will be his most talked-about role ever.

Happy endings

Lately I have realized that I have developed a different understanding of film. I’ve always been the type who would go for the unconventional ending–the remarkable twist, or the unexpected disaster at the end of a blissful romance. I’m probably one of the very few who thought that Jack should have totally let Rose drown, only because if she hadn’t been too heavy to begin with, both of them would have been able to float around on that wooden door all night after the sinking of the Titanic. But then again, I always wanted Watts and Keith to end up with each other in Some Kind of Wonderful, and I always rooted for Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in Sleepless in Seattle. So my enjoyment of the fateful twist may in fact be limited, and though I sometimes hate to admit it, I’m a sucker for happy endings.

Consider this post a follow-up to what seems to be my most popular post on this blog (I don’t know why, but that’s what the ticker says) “Decisions We Never Got Over”. In that post I listed some of the TV decisions (usually from the finales, or something leading up to it) that I thought audience members (namely me) never got over. In this one, I will be talking about what I feel about endings in general. For instance, let me start by saying that I’ve always thought that a movie is best represented by how it starts and how it ends. I feel the same way about books. When I am perusing the local book store for a new read, I usually know how good the book is just by reading the opening lines or the ending lines. Yes, I skip to the end, but only to read the very last few lines. For instance, Jeffrey Eugenides’ The Virgin Suicides had me from that very first line:

“On the morning the last Lisbon daughter took her turn at suicide-it was Mary this time, and sleeping pills, like Therese-the two paramedics arrived at the house knowing exactly where the knife drawer was, and the gas oven, and the beam in the basement from which it was possible to lie a rope.”

And they say don’t judge a book by its cover, but Chris Cleave’s Incendiary had me just at the title. When it comes to movies, the movies I love are usually the ones with the best openings or endings. For instance, Fight Club. Who starts off a movie with a barrel of a gun down someone’s throat, with Ed Norton’s eloquent voice-over to match? Only David Fincher. Trainspotting is an awesome movie altogether, but that parting shot of Ewan McGregor running for his life is just perfect. But what about endings? What makes the audience tick?

Could you imagine if this cute couple never got their happy ending? Let me see, I picture a whole lot of tomatoes flying.

You all probably know that Pretty Woman was originally slated to not have a happy ending. In fact, the original ending did not have Richard Gere cruising up Julia Roberts’ pad in his limo, with a bouquet of roses in hand to profess his undying love for her. It was screen-tested. And we know what the outcome of that was. Audiences hated it. It’s a given that American audiences love their happy endings. I think everyone in general does, too, but I feel like French films in general and maybe even some Chinese movies, rarely end happily. I don’t know why that is. Could it be because the French have a better acceptance of the ups and downs of life, hence why they coined the phrase C’est la vie - “such is life” or “that’s life”? Who knows? But the reality is, movies that end happily resonate more with average moviegoers. Who wants to pay 10 bucks to be depressed? Some of us, yeah, but the lot of us? Truth is, people go into theaters to take their minds off the everyday. Escapism is the new drug, and movies like Iron Man and Indiana Jones serve to lift our spirits up; make us laugh, make us gaze in awe at the visual effects and the intense car chases. It makes us feel like something extraordinary is happening to us other than the dull and dreary in our life. I’m sure any one of us would give anything to be in Tony Stark’s shoes.

Now let me get down to the nitty gritty. The reality is, we can’t all have happy endings. I like how a lot of movies showcase that. Some of us embrace realism better than others. To tell it like it is in movies is immensely difficult. It means sacrificing what could be a Hollywood blockbuster, and making it something more of an art form. Let’s take for instance The Bicycle Thief [Ladri di Biciclette]. Although the lot of us felt incredibly bad for Antonio and Bruno, the reality is what was depicted on screen: people rarely ever get their stuff back after it’s been stolen from them, and though they are the protagonists of the story, the story isn’t about triumph against adversity-it’s basically about shit happening to good people, and how no matter how good you are, it doesn’t mean you’re gonna get a good ending. Now, I had heard from my film teacher that America had wanted to adapt The Bicycle Thief and make it a full-length feature film, with Cary Grant, who was the hottest leading man at the time. I feel like it’s a blessing that this American adaptation never got made, because really? Cary Grant? How believable would he be as a completely hapless man, with his only means of livelihood stripped from him?

Tom and Jane argue about why they can't have their happy ending : James McAvoy and Anne Hathaway in Becoming Jane

Another movie whose ending I have never gotten over, and which I have blogged about here: Becoming Jane. Now, the fact of the matter is, Jane Austen never got her happy ending, and she chose to make her characters get them anyway, only because she thought, if I can’t have it, they will. It was like she was writing her own story, pretending that the reality had never occurred to her, and instead, making everything work out for the better, when in fact, in her own life, it didn’t turn out very well. Becoming Jane is one of my favorite movies, even though everytime I watch it, I feel like my heart is being twisted in my chest over and over again. It’s so heartbreaking to watch this talented and inspiring young woman, with everything ahead of her, not get the ending she deserves. It makes you think, and it makes you realize that you could feel like you deserve everything, but like the Stones song, “you can’t always get what you want”. But I think deeper about it, and I feel like although I would have loved more than anything else to see Tom LeFroy and Jane Austen end up together, the truth is that it would have been just another movie if that had happened. Had Becoming Jane ended on a much happier note than it did, I probably would have detested it.

Sorry Robin and Marian. No happy ending for you either.

A recent not so happy ending that totally befuddled me: Robin Hood on the BBC. In its second season, I felt like the series was growing really old, due to the fact that it still feels like season one, and it felt like we as audience members were just going round in circles with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Every single time the episodes showed Robin and his merry men getting out of scrapes and showcasing episode after episode of this exhausting cat and mouse game between Robin and the Sheriff. I was growing tired of the Robin and Marian storyline as well; I felt that it was about time the two of them got together already and fought the Sheriff together or whatever. I had predicted it would be this way. See, with a series such a Robin Hood that you can count on for lighthearted fun and predictable moments, when they deliver a season finale that’s an absolute opposite of what the whole show has been, as an audience member you can feel quite shocked, and even betrayed. Marian dies! No, I know she was “brought back” in season one, but in the ending for season 2, she really dies! For realz for realz this time! When it happened, I thought, hmm they’re going to find a way to resurrect her, just you wait. But they didn’t! She really, really died! And this ending completely blew me away that I felt like I had underestimated the legitimacy of this show. I kept thinking, how the fuck do they kill off Maid Marian? What is Robin Hood without Maid Marian? I just totally raged about it for ages. But then I figured, people die all the time, and why can’t it be Marian? Marian’s death means several things about the show: it makes the show “not just another lovey dovey everyone-lives-happily-ever-after piece of garbage on the telly”, but it means wonders for Robin Hood’s character. This time, he has absolutely no excuse not to stab the Sheriff through the heart (cue music…I shot the Sheriff, but I didn’t shoot the Deputy…oh no…), and even Gisborne. It means there will be more depth, more violence, and more character for the next season. So although the ending was gut-wrenching, I feel like it was done for a purpose that would only be good for the show.

To wrap this post up, let me end by saying, some movies are better with their happy endings, others are not. What sets Casino Royale from every other Bond movie is the fact that Vesper actually died. She didn’t just disappear into oblivion like every other Bond girl. It gave a whole new meaning to Bond as a character, and as a franchise. Would No Country for Old Men have gotten such rave reviews had Anton Chegur been captured and dealt with justice? In short, like it or not realism is a powerful thing to have in movies. And though I personally am a fan of both realism and escapism, a girl tends to like her happy endings even more.

Curses, gambling and a bank job

Jim Sturgess plays by the numbers in "21"

Okay, okay, so Kevin Spacey insists that what Jim Sturgess’ character is doing in 21 is not gambling, it’s Math. Well, I always sucked at Math, that’s probably why I didn’t really appreciate this film. I’ve never been a fan of casino movies, only because I’ve personally never gambled and don’t see the thrill of it. Yes, you can make easy money if you’re lucky. But I’ve never seen the bright side of depending on luck, so I’ve never been drawn to these types of movies. Kevin Spacey, as per usual, is Kevin Spacey - the cool teacher act is not unfamiliar to him; he’s done it in The Life of David Gale. He employs the same smooth, cocky demeanor reminiscent of his Lex Luthor in Superman Returns. I feel like Kevin Spacey has hit a plateau, though. Like, I think his best performance was in Seven or in American Beauty. After that, I feel like he’s just…Kevin Spacey.

Other performances in 21 aren’t exactly that memorable. I mean, to begin with the story of this poor but brilliant kid attending an Ivy League school and who gets into all sorts of trouble because he doesn’t have the money to pay for college? I mean, come on. Unoriginal much? 50 Pills has done that story, and that was a pretty decent film. I just didn’t see what was so interesting about this movie. I only saw it because I like Jim Sturgess. He’s kind of like in the same boat as James McAvoy and Jamie Bell, I think, and he might be the next big thing. He was great in Across the Universe, and his singing voice is not bad, so we know he can do musicals. Other than that, he wasn’t really anything spectacular in 21. His character did undergo a bit of an evolution, but not so much that I was completely blown away. Kate Bosworth…nothing special. This girl hasn’t exactly proven herself as an actress. I mean, when you say Kate Bosworth the only thing that comes to mind is Blue Crush and Win a Date With Tad Hamilton, both movies which tanked, if I’m not mistaken. In this film, I feel like she was just another actress slated for arm candy. Like, they could have replaced her with a different blonde bombshell and it could have easily been the same movie. In a nutshell, 21 isn’t really a good movie. It’s just another casino movie. Only this time, they insist, it’s not gambling, it’s Math. Sure, and I’m uninterested.

James McAvoy plays one of Penelope's suitors

Moving on to Penelope. I can’t quite make up my mind about this movie yet. I like the premise. I think it’s clever and I like the twist in this movie. I thought the twist was really interesting because I didn’t expect it from a feelgood Beauty and the Beast kind of story. Basically, Christina Ricci plays Penelope, a girl cursed with the nose of a pig. The only way that she can make it go away is if she is accepted by someone of the same nobility, so her family tries to set up marriages for her. Enter James McAvoy, who is a charming but down-and-out fellow paid by reporters to get inside Penelope’s house and take pictures of her (because she’s hidden away by her family that no one really knows what she looks like). I love the atmosphere of the film. It feels like The Addams Family, but with the soundtrack of a Tim Burton film. I like how the backdrop is London, or somewhere in England at least, but the people are from everywhere. Like for instance, James McAvoy’s character has an American accent while the rest of the characters are British. It’s very strange, but I like how the sets are elaborate and surreal, and how exaggerated the story is. On the other hand, I though it was a very short film. I would have liked a bit more depth, and a bit more character development. I thought it was funny, though. I’d probably buy this film on DVD, only because James McAvoy is so dashing in it, but other than that, I think it has the same feel as Enchanted. It’s not too deep–it’s just a feelgood movie with interesting characters and quirky acting, but with a typical yet somewhat unexpected ending (you’ll get it if you see the movie).

The team that's up for The Bank Job: starring Jason Statham and Saffron Burrows

So I figured, why not another Jason Statham movie? I mean, there can’t be anything worse than The Transporter 2 or In the Name of the King, right? This guy, honestly, I like him. He was great in The Italian Job and in the Guy Ritchie movies, and let’s admit that he’s kind of a hunk. However, he is kind of like the British Chuck Norris. He’s done a lot of B movies and his upcoming one, Death Race, looks to be another one. But I don’t doubt this guy’s talent. I mean, he’s a serious action star. In The Bank Job, he kind of employs the same kind of demeanor as his character in The Italian Job. He doesn’t do as much action in this film as he’s done in The Transporter, but it’s still a heist movie, and come on. I’m sure there are other actors, right? Anyway, he was pretty good in this movie. The film is based on a real life 1971 bank robbery called the Baker Street robbery, in which the details were never really found out at the time that it occurred because a gag order was requested by the government to protect a member of the British royal family. The story is pretty elaborate, and I thought it was interesting. The heist itself? Not so much. It wasn’t exactly the most ingenious bank robbery ever, but maybe that’s the beauty of it. The acting was fine, I didn’t think it was mind-blowing, but it was still more entertaining than 21.

Del Toro sees “Red” in Hellboy II

Hellboy II: The Golden Army is like the product of a little kid left alone at a candy store : it’s wild, imaginative, chaotic and full of things flying everywhere. Guillermo del Toro has struck again! The genius behind the critically acclaimed Pan’s Labyrinth has given us a sequel that seems to exceed expectations…at least in the visuals department. I came into the film not really expecting much, except for the fact that it was going to look good, because del Toro is known for his captivating scenery and sweeping visual effects. I got what I expected.

I was never really a fan of Hellboy to begin with. I had never picked up the comics, and I didn’t particularly find the first film exceptional. Yes, I have it on DVD and it’s good to watch when you’re bored and want some mindless entertainment, but it doesn’t excel in the hero movie department for me, only because I feel like it’s too light and airy. What I mean by this is that the movies never seem to have that gripping, oh-my-god-is-the-hero-going-to-survive moment when the audience is almost on their knees, wondering whether their beloved hero will emerge unscathed. The Hellboy movies are served kid-friendly, with pedestrian humor and of course, a major romantic plot line. Oh, and did I mention there was some singing? The first movie was blah, and the second movie was a little bit better, but I still don’t get that overwhelming urge to rush to the nearest Borders when the DVD hits stores to buy it.

Abe Sapien/Blue (played by Doug Jones) trying to sense the enemies about

I found myself getting sleepy somewhere in the middle of the movie. I felt that there wasn’t that much of a focus on the script and that the delivery was a bit disjointed. There was this one part where new character Johann Krauss (who is essentially a mass of gas that can only inflict damage if it takes the shape of some container of sorts) tells Hellboy that he knows what his fatal flaw is: his temper. I thought they would expound on this and use it as some sort of plot line towards the end when Hellboy and Prince Nuada would finally face off, but it seemed like they just mentioned it and forgot about it along the way. What a shame, because I felt like it would have been a better movie had that been explored.

On the upside, the movie is overall like a work of art. The visuals are absolutely stunning. The make-up department in particular should be commended for pulling off such intricate and believable work on these quirky characters. The fight scenes were better choreographed this time around and the props were so detailed and believable. I also liked the performance of Doug Jones, who plays Abe Sapien (Blue), and Luke Goss, who played the indomitable Prince Nuada, hellbent on destroying the human race with an unstoppable Golden Army of what appeared to be hulking robot-like things running on molten lava. Del Toro also seems to call on the same inspiration that he had from Pan’s Labyrinth to create this awesome demon:

Brothers from another mother, perhaps? One of del Toro's memorable creations from Pan's Labyrinth has an uncanny resemblance to another creature in Hellboy II

And this guy:

This guy terrorized our little heroine in Pan's Labyrinth.

Overall, it was a good movie in that it succeeded where no other superhero sequel (except maybe for the new Batman franchise or the newest Hulk movie) has succeeded: it was better than the original. The visuals were stunning, the fight scenes were sharp and precise, and the props and costumes were commendable. Other than that, all I can say is, it’s light and airy fun.

Lessons in badass

I think it’s been said way too many times on this blog that I absolutely adore James McAvoy, so I won’t say it, although I will imply it zillions of times in the post to come. I think this guy is the next big movie star, if he isn’t already. After Wanted, he’s now probably the most wanted actor in the biz. He’s shown himself to be extremely versatile, jumping from drama to action to romantic comedy effortlessly and with no compromises. He seems to be the kind of actor who wouldn’t take a role for the star power but for the substance. His performance in The Last King of Scotland was absolutely brilliant, and he was so moving in Becoming Jane. In Wanted, he was able to tap into the action star in him and unleash a totally different character: Wesley Gibson - an office nobody who hates his job, knows his best friend is sleeping with his girlfriend, and is being plagued by anxiety attacks. He’s the quintessential action hero in that he’s the unlikely hero that we all know and love - a staple in action hero movies like The Matrix wherein a nobody who is completely dissatisfied with his life is suddenly “chosen” to save the world. McAvoy is great as the blubbering, self-loathing Wesley and it was fun to watch him get into that character.

James McAvoy is chosen as an assassin for The Fraternity

Based on the graphic novel of the same name, the movie is basically about a group of assassins who call themselves The Fraternity - individuals who have been tasked to eliminate people who are predicted by some kind of magical loom to pose a threat in the future; kind of like Minority Report. Wesley is plucked out of his mundane existence by Angelina Jolie’s character, Fox, and recruited into The Fraternity, where he is trained and beaten the crap out of in order for him to become one of them.

Angelina Jolie puts on her game face as the fearless Fox

Wanted is a good movie if you want something thrilling and action-packed. It definitely aims to elicit oohs and aahs from an audience and throws the word “fuck” around a lot (although never as much as Pulp Fiction or that Limp Bizkit song), which is fine except it almost sounds redundant in some of Wesley’s lines. Angelina Jolie was pretty awesome in a role she probably feels at home with. Her character, Fox, is a woman with a tragic past and who is in The Fraternity because she believes it is the right thing to do, and she does not question it. Jolie steals every scene she is in and looks absolutely amazing toting guns and knocking over cars. She is riveting and you can’t keep your eyes off her, even though I did come to the theater for McAvoy.

Another star of the movie was Morgan Freeman, who didn’t really portray anything else other than, well, Morgan Freeman. The movie never had a dull moment, which is a plus, but it was lacking substance and depth in character. It was all testosterone and nothing cerebral. Sure, the premise is definitely a brain-scratcher. Would you kill someone if you knew they were going to do something evil in the future? Would you stamp out the embers before it became a raging fire? It’s a good question to pose, but isn’t exactly explored in detail in the film. There are a few moments where Wesley doubts if he is doing the right thing, but not enough, in my opinion, for a guy who was just plucked out of an ordinary existence.

Wanted is a good movie in that it fulfills our escapist fantasies as an audience. You completely forget that you’ve been sitting in the theater for a little under two hours, and you are constantly smirking everytime Wesley whines and moans about his life. It does try to step into the same shoes that The Matrix once owned, because the special effects department tries to incorporate the same slo-mo wow-I’m-shooting-everyone-by-myself-but-they-can’t-hit-me-at-all-because-I’m-the-chosen-one tactics that The Matrix employed in 1999. The fact is, there can’t be another movie like The Matrix. The Matrix came at a time when sci-fi was comprised of spaceships and light sabers and not gravity-defying jumps and bullet-evading back bends. But if you’re looking for badass, then Wanted definitely has it.

Hulk mad! Hulk smash!

This review is a little late, but bear with me, since I have been a bit busy. So I had been waiting all summer to see the new Hulk movie starring Ed Norton and although I enjoyed the film, I have to say my expectations were not exactly met. Initially I had thought that they would be retelling the whole Hulk story, and that it was not planned as a sequel. It was only until I had sat down in the theater that I realized that it was a sequel. Did it matter? No. So why wasn’t it kickass?

Ed Norton as Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk

Yes, there was some awesome action. Things were blowing up, the action sequences were intense and amazing. The acting was great from both Norton and Tim Roth, so what was missing? I can’t exactly pinpoint one thing. I think it was a whole slew of things, really. For one, the script did not blow me away. When I first heard that the script would be a collaborative effort between Norton and another person, I thought, well, how can this go wrong? I heard how passionately Norton had spoken about getting involved with this project back at Comic-Con 2007 and I felt like he would do the film justice. Sadly, Marvel remains to be in it for the big bucks, and of course, they made some decisions that ultimately, I felt, took away from the depth and character of the movie. Apparently the film was supposed to be a lot darker and a lot moodier. For instance, there were rumors that the film was intended to open somewhere in the Arctic, where Bruce Banner is trying to kill himself. He has finally figured that he can’t get rid of the demon inside him, so he might as well just kill himself. He has injured the woman he loves, he has become a hunted man, and he has lost all will and reason to live. This, I think, is an awesome starter. It is totally believable, totally script-worthy, and I would pay to see just this one scene! But of course, the head honchos at Marvel intervened. They felt that the whole suicide thing was a bit too dark for their intended family-friendly audience. PG-13, right? That means no superhero-gone-suicidal. They need to bring in the little kiddies to make a buck. I mean, come on. It’s Hollywood. What do you expect? So the film was lacking in the depth and the overall script wasn’t that outstanding,

Ommmmm...Ed Norton's Bruce Banner, working on his anger management

But the performances can always save a bad script, right? Ah, only by so much, I think. Norton was great, sure, and I loved how he turned Bruce Banner into somewhat of a Jason Bourne character–leading FBI agents half across a foreign country in intense narrow-alley chases. And Tim Roth was delightfully villainous in this role as the power-hungry military officer who wants to be a Hulk himself. Liv Tyler wasn’t really even in the movie, I thought. All she did was scream “No!” a lot and pout her famous Steven Tyler-inherited lips and that was it. There was no depth to her character either. She was just arm candy, in my opinion, which I hate to say, because she’s a very talented actress.

Another thing that didn’t bode well for the movie was its lack of humor. And no, I don’t think it’s a contradiction to ask for a movie that is both dark yet funny. I feel like this movie had absolutely no humor. Where it did try to have a little fun, it didn’t exactly hit the jackpot. I don’t feel like there was enough character development, but this is mostly explained by the fact that it is a sequel and that it doesn’t bother to reintroduce characters.

Overall, I still think it’s a better movie than the original Ang Lee version, but I feel like it could have been much better. Not a disappointment, but definitely not a favorite.