REVIEW: District 9

District 9 (2009): Dir. Neill Blomkamp. Written by Neil Blomkamp, Terry Tatchell. Starring Sharlo Copley. Rated R (bloody violence and pervasive language). Running time: 112 minutes.

3 ½ stars (out of four)

While Cloverfield hardly invented the hand-held, pseudo-documentary style, it popularized the technique as a way of creating a sense of realism in science-fiction films, opening the door for movies like District 9. But where Cloverfield was good, queasy fun, District 9 uses the style to tell a complex narrative that begins as an allegory and turns into a thrilling fugitive-on-the-run movie. Neill Blomkamp’s directorial debut is smart, thought-provoking, and just plain awesome.

A brief summary of District 9’s alternate history is necessary. In the late 1980’s, a massive spaceship enters Earth’s atmosphere, coming to a halt hovering above the city of Johannesburg, South Africa. The South African government finds hundreds of sick aliens inside the ship and offers them food, shelter and medical attention. After an unsuccessful integration into society, Johannesburg becomes segregated into humans and non-humans, leading to the development of District 9, a supposed home for the aliens. District 9 soon becomes something of a ghetto, complete with a black market for illegal weapons run by militant African drug dealers who seek to exploit the aliens.

If all this seems like a lot to take in, don’t worry. The film covers its backstory in an ingenious fake documentary opening. This sequence also informs us of the tension escalating between humans and aliens, until an independent contractor, Multinational United, steps in to evict the aliens from District 9. These scenes are fascinating in the way the material is treated with an un-ironic seriousness, complete with input from sociologists and clips of old news footage. Blomkamp’s confidence in the mythology of District 9 gives the film’s opening a sense of self-assuredness that makes it easy to buy into his fictionalized Johannesburg.

This alternate city however, is an allegory for the political and racial climate of Johannesburg during apartheid, with District 9 standing in for the real-life District Six where black residents were evicted from their homes by order of the South African government. Blomkamp and his lead, South African native Sharlto Copley, balance these scenes with an appropriate sense of absurdity while also revealing the injustices of recent history.

The real triumph of District 9 however, is that it does not limit itself to its allegorical inspiration, but rather uses this as a springboard for its own sci-fi action story. Blomkamp colors the film with great details such as the aliens’ affinity for canned cat food, or the use of the derogatory term “prawn” by most humans towards the aliens. The plot also takes several unexpected turns, some late in the film, becoming both exhilarating and horrifying. This is thought provoking social commentary in the tradition of The Twilight Zone while also providing all the chase sequences and exploding heads a late-summer action flick should have.

The film also features some of the most impressive visual effects of the year, boasting a seamless integration between CGI and live-action, never calling attention to the computer animation. This is no surprise considering producer Peter Jackson leant his special effects studio, Weta Digital, responsible for The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, to complete effects shots along with other smaller studios. Throughout District 9, the focus is always on the characters and the interaction between humans and aliens; the effects never take the spotlight off the story.

At first, it seems the ending of District 9 is in need of an epilogue, but the open-endedness of the conclusion actually works very well. The ending returns to the documentary format, where a sociologist explains how the mysteries surrounding District 9 have been discussed and dissected to no avail by conspiracy theorists. Like all good conspiracy theories, the fun of District 9 is in the unknown, and reexamining and revisiting in an effort to find something new. And I’ll be more than happy to revisit District 9 very soon.

- Steve Avigliano, 8/22/09

REVIEW: (500) Days of Summer

(500) Days of Summer (2009): Dir. Marc Webb. Written by: Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber. Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel. Rated PG-13 (sexual material and language). Running time: 95 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

There’s a line in High Fidelity that goes something like, “Do I listen to pop music because I’m depressed, or am I depressed because I listen to pop music?” Not only does Tom, the Hopeless Romantic of (500) Days of Summer agree with the latter, he gives a rousing speech late in the film, throwing Hollywood movies and greeting cards into the mix, and accuses them all of poisoning the minds of our youth with lies of romance and love. But give the guy a break, his girlfriend just broke up with him 100 days ago.

The movie recounts a romance that begins in the office when Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) spots the new assistant, Summer (Zooey Deschanel) and falls for her despite her lack of interest in a serious relationship and her insistence that love does not exist. Some 200+ days later the relationship crumbles, leaving Tom devastated and at the mercy of his friends’ and younger sister’s attempts to comfort him. For the most part, the film intercuts the beginnings of their relationship with the final days, a structure that provides some fun contrasts between the initial bliss of new love and the eventual misery that follows. Once the earlier scenes catch up to the day of the breakup, the film focuses on Tom’s post-Summer days, which consist mostly of wallowing in a self-induced misery.

These scenes successfully capture the mindset of a young man blindsided by the seeming cruelties of the opposite sex, delving deep into the self-pitying world of one-word questions (“How?” “Why?”). With visual inventiveness, (500) Days of Summer turns familiar territory into something fresh and full of energy. After a very good first date, Tom joins an over-the-top musical number, complete with a choreographed dance and tweeting animated birds. Later, the film’s best and most heartbreaking moment comes in a split-screen with Tom’s expectations for a party playing alongside the unpleasant reality. From the mock-text that opens the film, assuring the audience that the story is not based on a real girl, (500) Days of Summer is a playful recreation of post-breakup suffering, accompanied by a killer soundtrack.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are entirely at ease with one another, creating chemistry in their many moments onscreen together. Gordon-Levitt is especially charming, pulling the extra weight in his scenes without Summer. Along with recent films like Brick and The Lookout, Gordon-Levitt has recently been turning in strong performances in interesting movies, G.I. Joe notwithstanding, and is becoming one of the best young actors working today. Deschanel too, may be counted on for a likable performance; she’s given the difficult task here of continuing to be irresistible even in Summer’s coldest moments. She allows her to be a complex and inscrutable character, and if we never learn the exact reason for Summer’s change of heart, that’s only because Summer herself probably couldn’t tell us.

(500) Days of Summer succeeds where other romances falter by remaining honest in its depiction of relationship complexities, the constant balancing act of emotions, needs and the reality-check of life’s unpredictability. There’s an attention to detail here that makes the young couple so worth rooting for. But for all its authentic moments, (500) Days of Summer has its fair share of movie contrivances, both large (a convenient train ride to a mutual friend’s wedding provides an opportunity for a reunion) and small (I’ve never heard of a jukebox that has Pixies’s “Here Comes Your Man” but not “Born to Run”), but these moments are not entirely out of place in a film whose lead character is conflicted between a romantic belief in Fate and a nihilistic acceptance of life’s randomness.

After a breezy 95 minutes, the characters eventually decide on the view that everything in life happens for a reason, but the movie never explicitly endorses that belief. Life and love are what you make of them. Sure, they’re unfair, but maybe they have a way of coming around and rewarding the patient. Is such an ambiguous conclusion a satisfying one? The final shot of The Graduate, which this film shows in full, watches the two lovers’ smiles fade as they look around, unsure of their next move. Tom’s final look in (500) Days of Summer is, by contrast, much more assured and confident. Me, I remain unconvinced on the issue of destiny and randomness, but I’m happy that he’s happy.

- Steve Avigliano, 8/13/09

REVIEW: Funny People

Funny People (2009): Written and Directed by Judd Apatow. Starring: Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman. Rated R (language and crude sexual humor throughout, and some sexuality). Running time: 146 min.

2 ½ stars (out of four)

Funny People is about the competitive brotherhood of stand-up comedians and the world of raunchy conversations and part-time jobs that exist in between gigs. Funny People is about a comedic superstar forced to reexamine his life of empty fame after being diagnosed with a form of leukemia. Funny People is about a man who, twelve years after the fact, tries to get back the love of his life despite her new husband and family. The third film from writer/director/producer-extraordinaire Judd Apatow could lay claim to any of the above descriptions, but in actuality Funny People tries to be all of these things at once, ultimately becoming overlong and underdeveloped in the process.

Despite virtually unanimous acclaim for his first two films (The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up), the one note of criticism made of both was that they could benefit from some editing. Even films such as Pineapple Express and Superbad, which bear Apatow’s name under a producer credit, could sacrifice some minutes. Almost in defiance of these criticisms, he has delivered a film more in need of condensing than any of his previous efforts. In trying to fill the movie with an ambitious plot, Apatow delivers a film that is comedically successful but dramatically uneven.

The scenes of three young stand-up comedians/roommates (Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman) are standard Apatowian fare: male bonding, sex talk and pop-culture references. Their one-liners and banter are as funny as anything you’ll hear this year, along with some great excerpts of stand-up routines. The movie also has great fun with a fake TV show, “Yo Teach!” starring Schwartzman’s character. Rogen in particular is hilarious as Ira Wright, a shyer, less confidant version of the character he played in Knocked Up, scoring laughs from subtleties and character details in addition to his jokes.

The heart of Funny People however, lies with Adam Sandler’s performance as former stand-up comedian turned superstar, George Simmons. Simmons, we learn from posters and clips of fake movies, has built an immensely successful career on dumb comedies like Merman (self-explanatory) and Re-Do (about a man turned into a baby). By poking fun at Sandler’s own career as a film comedian, these self-references lend credibility to the character, giving strength to the more emotional moments that come later. After a positive reaction to Ira’s stand-up, Simmons takes him on as an assistant, apprentice and confidant to his medical secret. Scenes between Sandler and Rogen are particularly good in the way they depict a man who is very good at subverting his fears with laughter.

Following a few revelations in the face of death, a process expedited through use of montages, Simmons decides the one part of his life most in need of fixing is his romantic life. None of the girls in his long line of one-night stands compare to his almost-wife from years before, Laura (the irresistible Leslie Mann). In this last leg of the film, we get some very funny scenes featuring Eric Bana as a cheerfully pompous Australian businessman. When the film tries to wrap up a complicated situation into a neat finale, its Bana’s delightfully absurd monologue about lessons learned during his trips to China that masks the strings Judd Apatow is carefully pulling as screenwriter.

This tidy ending comes as something of a disappointment following The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up, neither of which relied on contrivances. Those films remained, excluding occasional tangents for the sake of a good joke, focused on the main storyline. They used side characters to populate the films’ worlds, but never lost sight of the central characters. Each of those films also offered surprisingly good-natured morals as solutions to the complexities of their characters’ lives. For The 40-Year-Old Virgin it was their choice to wait until marriage; for Knocked Up, it was the decision to raise the baby in spite of the challenges. The ending of Funny People places a similar importance on family ideals, but never makes a strong argument for what happens.

On a scene-by-scene basis, Funny People works, but as a whole film it is unfocused, failing to deliver one cohesive message, but instead a collection of ideas that linger in the air as the credits roll. And yet the film is consistently enjoyable on the strength of its sharp comedic writing and winning performances. That shouldn’t come as a surprise though: these are, after all, very, very funny people.

- Steve Avigliano, 8/03/09

2009 So Far

2009 is more than half way done and it’s been a pretty good summer for movies with more good stuff to come. Here are a few thoughts that ran through my head in the last few months about some movies that I haven’t yet written about on this site. I’ve designated special awards for each.

The Gypsy Curse Award: Drag Me to Hell

Drag Me to Hell was the most fun I’ve had at the movies all year so far. Taking a break from the Spiderman films (probably for the best after a disappointing Spidey 3), Sam Raimi returned to his campy horror roots with a film that revels in its own over-the-top gory glory. The music on the jump scares is cranked to 11, the blood spurting gets the Monty Python seal of approval, and the talking goat box is decisively checked off. There’s a great scene where, in a tense moment, Raimi slowly zooms in on his star (Alison Lohman) only to cut back to a wider shot, zooms in again, cuts back, zooms in again, cuts back… He does this up to five times before we realize he’s just teasing the audience. This is the work of a horror movie junkie having unabashed fun with his own film, taking every disgusting moment too far and then a little more. It’s funny, scary and a great time, even if the ending can be spotted a few scenes away.

The I Wish It Didn’t Have Talking Dogs Award: Up

The opening twenty minutes-or-so of Up are utterly perfect and had tears in my eyes, but about half way through, the movie goes from a great film, to merely a very good kids film. Up has the feel of a great Pixar short that was stretched into a full length, becoming more conventional animated fare along the way. The ending returns to the sweet sentiments of the opening, and I left the theater satisfied even if I wasn’t too excited. Note: I saw Up in 3-D and I officially declare this 3-D craze not worth the extra $3. Computer animation is impressive enough on its own, and I see no need for the extra dimension.

The Don't Get Carried Away Award: Star Trek and The Hangover

This one is a tie between two movies that I’m happy to see have done tremendous box office, but if I may play devil’s advocate I’d like to clear the hype-dust from these movies.

I was never pumped to see Star Trek, but I was pleasantly surprised by it. It’s a very entertaining film that retained the nerd appeal of the franchise while also bringing that appeal to a broader audience. (My initial prediction that the film would satisfy neither the geeks nor the masses was majorly wrong.) Star Trek gets a lot of things right, but it’s a little long and all the back-story exposition becomes tiresome. Still, I’m looking forward to the next installment when the writers won’t need to worry about such matters.

The Hangover delivered several big laughs with chuckles throughout, and it felt great to see a good comedy that didn’t have Judd Apatow’s name attached. Zach Galifianakis has also emerged as “the next big thing” and deservedly so – most if not all of the best jokes here are his. But a very funny movie does not equate to “the funniest movie ever,” a label I’ve heard used in conjunction with The Hangover. It was refreshingly funny; let’s leave it at that.

The Fuck You, McG Award: Terminator Salvation

I left the theater feeling under-whelmed, disappointed and, frankly, a little bored by the movie I had seen. Over the next few days, my disappointment festered inside my nerd gland, becoming nothing short of hatred for Terminator Salvation. It wasn’t long before I found myself loathing every frame of the movie from Christian Bale’s monotone voice to the cringe-inducing “romance.” Of course, the film isn’t nearly as bad as I’m making it out to seem. In fact, it’s a perfectly functional and disposable special effects showcase that just happens to have the Terminator logo branded on it. Remember how much fun the first two films were? This one is a stone-faced action flick, all washed-out grays and browns, without a shred of fun to its silly name (where’s the Salvation, anyways?). It’s unfocused, neglecting to offer the audience not one good villain, but instead, a host of faceless giant machines and thinking motorcycles for our heroes to fight. Director McG has plenty of ambition, but no creativity. Worst of all however how is how the once badass Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn in the first film) has been reduced to a teenaged wuss here. The film ends with a helicopter ride into the sunset (Jurassic Park anyone?) implying a sequel. You can count me out of that one.

- Steve Avigliano, 8/02/09