REVIEW: Up in the Air

Up in the Air (2009): Dir. Jason Reitman. Written by: Sheldon Turner and Jason Reitman. Based on a novel by Walter Kim. Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick. Rated R (language and some sexual content). Running time: 109 minutes.

4 stars (out of four)

There’s a sense of exhilaration that comes with independence. Moving at your own pace, doing what you want to do, setting goals and accomplishing them without the help of others. Being on your own might be the only way to truly learn about yourself, to find your identity underneath the mess of personal, social, business and all other relationships. This philosophy is one shared by Ryan Bingham, whose motivational speeches encourage attendees to imagine their life in a backpack. The fewer things and people in the backpack, the faster you move. But there’s a blurred line between independence and loneliness not addressed in Bingham’s speech, and it is this line that Up in the Air examines.

Ryan Bingham, played with characteristic cockiness (or is it charm?) by George Clooney, works for a company that serves as the middleman for corporations across the country who seek to lay off their employees. Men and women like Bingham meet with the soon-to-be-terminated employees, inform them of their company’s decision and present them with a self-help packet of new opportunities available in life after the pink slip. Bingham has perfected his job to an art. He enjoys it. He loves the constant movement of traveling, informing us that he’s on the road over 300 days a year, and he’s a great talker. Bingham, from his brutal profession to his self-isolating ideology, has all the components of an immensely unlikable character, and yet we’re drawn to him, even admiring him for his calculated efficiency. Clooney’s casting is key and without it, the humorous asides, the self-congratulation and all of Bingham’s narration would fall flat. Director Jason Reitman understands the importance of casting a charming actor as his unlikable protagonist. Aaron Eckhart’s performance as a tobacco lobbyist in Reitman’s 2006 film, Thank You For Smoking, succeeds in making an otherwise despicable man a delight. Clooney’s performance isn’t anything new for him as an actor – Clooney knows a thing or two about turning up the charm – but the script allows for a more complex characterization than Danny Ocean. There’s truth in Bingham’s motivational speeches, but there’s more to him than his lecturing lets on.

These hidden layers start to reveal themselves with the help of Bingham’s two foils: Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), a fellow corporate travel addict who presents the possibility to Bingham of finding a soulmate, and young Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a new employee at the company who steps on Bingham’s toes by suggesting the company go online to cut travel costs. Farmiga, whose fine performance in The Departed was overshadowed by that film’s stars, exudes a cool confidence in her early scenes with Clooney and gradually reveals real compassion. She brings more to the table than simply being the romantic interest by creating an honest portrayal of a businesswoman closing in on middle aged. Kendrick plays Natalie just under a caricature, balancing her ruthlessness with romantic naiveté as Bingham takes her under his wing to show her the ropes of the business. Jason Bateman proves himself reliable as always in a supporting role as Bingham’s boss, and character actors J.K. Simmons and Zach Galifianakis have memorable cameos as well in a scene apiece.

Much of the film’s success comes from Reitman’s style as a director. Every stylistic choice he makes enriches the themes and characters. He uses quick cuts as Bingham explains the packing process to emphasize his efficiency and moves the movie along at a brisk pace without sacrificing more tender scenes. Too often so-called “dramadies,” such as Up in the Air, treat the tone of a scene as falling in either the comedy camp or drama, and they lurch back and forth between the two genres until the movie ends. Reitman, however, understands the need to show how the two tones intertwine, crafting moments that are simultaneously humorous and poignant.

The film also makes good use of its soundtrack, using pop songs to underscore themes of travel and isolation. The opening title sequence, for example, pairs aerial photos with Sharon Jones and the Dap-Kings’ funkified version of “This Land Is Your Land” as a way of introducing Bingham’s pioneer attitude while providing an ironic introduction to corporate America’s industrialized land.

Some might argue that the film’s theme of downsizing and its topical references to a poor economic climate might keep the film from attaining a timeless status, but its emotional core remains the primary focus. Reitman creates a dialogue between Bingham’s backpack philosophy and the more romantic belief in the importance of building an emotional connection with another person. Up in the Air successfully gives us a capsule of our moment in time and shows us the humanity of it. And isn’t that what all films should do?

- Steve Avigliano, 12/30/09

REVIEW: Avatar

Avatar (2009): Written and Directed by James Cameron. Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Joel David Moore, Michelle Rodriguez. Rated PG-13 (intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality and language). Running time: 161 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

** Note: I saw the film in its IMAX 3D version at an AMC theater.

James Cameron has been a pioneer of computer effects since 1989’s The Abyss and each of his successive films, including Terminator 2 and Titanic, has brought the technology to new heights. Avatar is the next great leap forward, featuring the most sophisticated use of computer animation and motion-capture technology yet, the result of a labor of love that dates back to 1994. Unlike previous Cameron outings, however, the movie lacks a strong script. The consistently impressive visuals are not quite enough to keep the story from becoming underwhelming in its familiarity.

In Avatar’s distant future, the people of Earth have found their way to the forest moon of Pandora, where a mining operation is underway in pursuit of the unimaginatively titled mineral, unobtanium. Dr. Grace Augustine, played by Cameron-vet Sigourney Weaver, leads a research team to explore the world and communicate with the natives, big blue humanoids called the Na’vi. Her team remotely controls genetically created Na’vi imitations called Avatars to establish better relations with the alien race, but their peaceful efforts are continuously hindered by a military presence led by Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang). The Colonel’s brutal pep talk to his Marines consists of reminding them of their perpetual risk of death on Pandora. Caught between the two is disabled Marine, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), who flies to Pandora after his deceased brother leaves a vacancy in the Avatar program. Sully’s recruitment is twofold, using his Avatar to learn about Na’vi culture, while also acquiring information regarding the location of unobtanium fields for Quaritch. It’s not long before Sully falls for Na’vi life and a Na’vi female (Zoe Saldaña), and suffers the moral conflict that comes with double agency.

The film’s plot, boiled down to its essentials is a familiar one, placing the emotional conflict of Dances With Wolves into a setting not unlike Return of the Jedi’s Endor, while preaching an environmental message much like that of Fern Gully. Though Cameron’s visual imagination in creating the alien world keeps the film from feeling stale, his script too often uses these borrowed elements as a crutch. One gets the impression that Cameron focused all his energy on the look of Pandora, leaving the story an assortment of used parts. The film’s most narratively interesting moments come in its midsection as Jake Sully struggles with issues of identity switching between his human body and Avatar counterpart. Worthington, who was a lifeless statue earlier this year in Terminator: Salvation, brings a compelling everyman quality to Sully in a heartfelt performance. Once Sully’s assimilation into the Na’vi tribe is complete, however, the script shifts onto the usual track, ending with a climatic battle against the humans for Pandora.

Aside from Sully, all of Avatar’s characters are archetypes except perhaps for Dr. Augustine, but Sigourney Weaver never manages to fully sell her character’s tougher side. Michelle Rodriguez appears as a Marine pilot, a strangely underdeveloped character considering the pivotal role she plays near the film’s end. Though the film runs long at 161 minutes, the narrative moves quickly, relying heavily on montages and condensed exposition. Cameron’s original cut of the film is said to have been well over 3 hours, and one wonders if the cut scenes would have strengthened its characters and pacing. While an extended running time might help, it would not rectify all of Avatar’s problems. Much of the film’s dialogue is clichéd and the ending features a deus ex machina bigger (in more ways than one) than Return of the King’s eagle saviors.

All of these concerns become moot, however, in Avatar’s visual presentation. More than once I was wowed by breathtaking panoramic shots, and the motion capture animation is thoroughly convincing at all times. Cameron crafts moments of sheer awe without ever flaunting his technology simply because he has the capability to. Like the Star Wars films, the visual effects stem from endless creativity in the shaping of a colorful, fully realized world. Avatar’s divergences into the life and culture of Pandora make up its most thrilling moments. Cameron provides several memorable action sequences, not the least of which is the final battle – both absorbing and gleefully over-the-top. Where other action films get queasy in their kinetic editing, Avatar features crisp cuts and remembers to engage the audience in the fun. That this is Cameron’s first non-documentary film since 1997 is a shame considering the multitude of disappointing action flicks that have passed through theaters in the last twelve years.

But the delay was not in vein, and Cameron has supposedly developed new types of digital cameras and 3D technology in preparation for Avatar’s release. As far as the 3D presentation of Avatar goes, I’m still not convinced that the trend is much more than a gimmick. While the gimmick is expertly used here, the uncomfortable glasses and the frequent jerkiness of the picture onscreen – most noticeable in dialogue scenes – remain distracting. The 3D experience attempts to immerse the audience in the action, but I found the extra dimension kept me at a distance from the film. I’m impressed enough by computer animation in two dimensions and, for me, using my two eyes alone remains the definitive way to watch a movie.

Nevertheless, Avatar is the result of supreme craftsmanship and, at the very least, will be remembered for its innovative and seamless use of computer animation. In this regard, Avatar earns placement next to other effects-laden epic films such as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but the film lacks the characters and story that make those films timeless. Then again, maybe Avatar will prove itself to be a worthy first installment of a longer franchise. Only time and another $300 million dollars will tell.

- Steve Avigliano, 12/27/09

REVIEW: Paranormal Activity

Paranormal Activity (2009): Written and Directed by Oren Peli. Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Mark Fredrichs. Rated R (language). Running time: 86 minutes

3 ½ stars (out of four)

Apparently reality is the only thing that can truly scare us anymore. Over the past several years, there’s been a growing subgenre of horror films that create pseudo-realities out of handheld cameras and amateur actors. Starting ten years ago with The Blair Witch Project, and more the more recent Quarantine based on the Spanish REC, these films could be seen as a reaction to the disgusting unreality of the ever-popular torture porn movies. They are bringing the suspense and terror back to a genre that has recently been confusing squeamishness for real fright.

Paranormal Activity follows this trend of simulating home videos, even going so far as leaving out a title sequence and end credits. The home movie in questions accounts the haunting of college undergrad Katie, who claims to have been followed her whole life by an evil spirit, which we learn from a psychic to be a demon. Micah, Katie’s live-in boyfriend, hopes to catch the demon on camera while they sleep and even try to get it out of his house. For the purposes of this film, he captures every part of the process with a high-quality video and sound system.

The film’s mockumentary style is hardly innovative, but what makes Paranormal Activity so remarkable is the way it plays on our expectations for a horror film, and subverts them in every scene. Writer/director Oren Peli deconstructs the genre to its most basic elements, putting new twists on classic tricks and continually surprising us with simple but effective filmmaking.

The structure of the film systematically winds up the audience by building tension in its night scenes (when the demon comes out) and providing release in the daytime scenes. Peli conditions the audience with this pattern of tension, release, tension, release, until the demon starts creating mayhem in the daytime and there is no relief to be found by the light of day. The actual paranormal activity in the film gradually builds in intensity, beginning with a simple swing of the door and later escalating to more horrific occurrences.

Each of these scares, particularly those in the night-cam shots, is carefully created with simple tricks of lighting and editing, but they’re effective in their simplicity. After a tense anticipatory build-up, a mere shadow on the wall is enough to cause a jolt. Paranormal Activity, which was shot in a week in Peli’s house on a minimal budget, is a testament to my theory that the scariest films are those made on a low budget.

Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat, who use their actual names in the film, give naturalistic performances that succeed in enhancing the film’s verisimilitude without growing tedious. Underneath their improvised dialogue and true-to-life reactions however, they play stock horror film characters: the comely, vulnerable girl and her cocky, self-assured boyfriend. That Peli hides these artifices under the guise of a home movie makes the film all the more impressive.

Along with Drag Me to Hell, this is the second horror film in a year to feature demons as its specter of choice and I’m wondering if they’re not currently the most ripe with frightful potential. Zombies and ghosts have had more than their fair share of the market (don’t even get me started on vampires) and seem to be capable of creating real mystery, something lacking in most of today’s horror fare. Paranormal Activity has so far received a limited release, but will be enjoying a wider release this weekend – just in time for Halloween. Now if a film like this could take even a small bite out of Saw VI’s box office, I would rest easier in my demon-plagued bed.

- Steve Avigliano, 10/13/09

You May Have Missed...

The following are three movies released this year that are no longer in theaters, but either will be on DVD soon or already are.

Ponyo - 3 stars (out of four)

An unusual and wonderful fantasy about a magical fish, Ponyo, who eventually becomes a little girl on land and befriends a kindergarten-aged boy named Sōsuke. Ponyo is much more of a children’s story than past Miyazaki films and so the film is imbued with a sense of innocence. Despite its relatively straightforward narrative, Ponyo’s animation has a strangeness to it that takes the film to a place of playful inventiveness uncommon in most children’s movies. The American voice-over actors are even pretty good, including Liam Neeson, Tina Fey and the youngest siblings of Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers (don’t worry: they’re cute enough as the kids’ voice and they only sing in the credits). Ponyo may not be the strongest film Miyazaki has made, but it’s a charming adventure and better than just about every animated film that doesn’t have the word “Pixar” attached to it. Ponyo is not yet available on DVD in the United States.

Adventureland - 3 ½ stars (out of four)

Greg Mottola’s follow-up to 2007’s Superbad isn’t as funny as its predecessor, but it’s not intended to be. Adventureland is more heartfelt and arguably the better film. That’s not to say Adventureland isn’t funny – Mottola’s autobiographical take on summer jobs, trashy amusement parks and young romance are all the funnier in their true-to-life honesty. The movie stars Jesse Eisenberg as James, essentially a matured version of the Michael Cera character, and Kristen Stewart as his romantic foil (I promise, she only makes the Twilight-mope face in a few scenes). Along with a number of great supporting roles, including SNL-ers Bill Hader and Kritsen Wiig, Adventureland pulls off a rare feat: it is an emotionally resonant and memorably hilarious movie. Adventureland is now available on DVD.

Angels and Demons - 1 ½ stars (out of four)

2006’s The DaVinci Code was everything the book was: hokey, full of plot holes and largely mindless in spite of its lofty ambitions as a thinking man’s action film. Angels and Demons is all that and more: a disastrous example of what happens when the talents in front of and behind the camera are only in it for the paycheck. Tom Hanks has gotten a haircut, but his performance is almost entirely camp. As director, Ron Howard does little to make the hackneyed script bearable, although the script does remove author Dan’s Brow’s final absurd twist (where the Pope is revealed to have a child). The movie would be tolerable if it weren’t for the film’s stubborn insistence of credibility. Its scientific storyline about anti-matter is as ridiculous as its attempts to provide historical and religious insight. I’d recommend it as unintentional entertainment if it weren’t an interminable 140 minutes long. But if someone puts together a good YouTube compilation like The Wicker Man, by all means, check it out. Angels and Demons will be available on DVD November 24.

- Steve Avigliano, 10/12/09

REVIEW: Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds (2009): Written & Directed by Quentin Tarantino. Starring Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Michael Fassbender, Eli Roth, Diane Kruger, Daniel Brühl, Til Schweiger. Rated R (strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality). Running time: 153 minutes.

4 stars (out of four)

Just two years ago, it seemed as though Quentin Tarantino, in his second decade of filmmaking, had resigned to reviving forgotten cult movie genres. The Kill Bill films, while brilliant in their own respect, emphasize style as much as they do plot, and are essentially pastiches of the many B-movies Tarantino has assimilated through a lifetime of movie watching. Death Proof, his contribution to the exploitation throwback Grindhouse, is trashy fun with a feminist bent, but its ultimate goal is still emulation. There was even talk of him making a kung-fu film to be shot entirely in Mandarin that never came to fruition. Inglourious Basterds too bares the director’s love of movies, but it also allows Tarantino to return to what he truly does best: storytelling.

At first it seems as if Inglourious Basterds is going to follow in Pulp Fiction’s narrative footsteps; the film is divided into chapters that initially seem disconnected. Basterds however, offers a more linear narrative and its structure is not so much episodic as it is patient. Not until the fourth chapter of five does Tarantino begin to pull the separate threads together. By the time we reach the final chapter and all the main players are gathered in one room together, the payoff is even bigger after such a gradual build. Tarantino resists intercutting the storylines, allowing scenes the time to build on their own terms, and giving each scene a greater dramatic impact. Without cutting away to another scene, there is no break in tension and we get to watch a scene slowly simmer before it boils over.

The opening scene is an excellent example this, setting the film’s pace with a long dialogue scene between high-ranking Nazi Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) and a French farmer (Denis Menochet). The dialogue here crackles with tension as Landa takes his time with pleasantries before getting down to business. Also impressive is how this scene, as well as many others in the film, is not only dialogue-driven, but primarily subtitled. As it was in Nazi-occupied France, characters move between French, German and English depending on the setting and company. As the scene gradually unravels, we learn the purpose of Landa’s visit to the farm: to learn the whereabouts of a Jewish family that has been eluding the SS for months. Christoph Waltz, a relatively unknown Austrian TV actor, commands attention from his first moments onscreen, remaining calm throughout his investigation and relishing the tense silence. There is an immediate understanding that this is an intelligent man very good at his job, and his performance retains this foreboding presence throughout the film.

After an impressive opener, the film introduces the Basterds, a rogue troop of Jewish-American soldiers led by Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt brandishing a Southern accent and some fine comedic timing) whose goal is to instill fear in the Nazis by brutally killing every German soldier they come across. Oh yeah, and scalping them too. The Basterds’ storyline is the stylistic heart of the movie, indulging in flashbacks, montages and even a brief narration by Samuel L. Jackson. Though Tarantino pulls out all his best tricks here, the stylization never eclipses the scenes’ intent. He has great fun with the Basterds but never overdoes anything. As for the scalping, it’s all part of Tarantino’s endless cinematic invention. His characters exist in a self-aware movie world where such things are just a fact of war.

Finally, the movie introduces us to the other major player, French cinema-owner Shosanna Dreyfus, and Tarantino’s requisite strong female character (there’s actually two in this movie). Dreyfus is hiding her Jewish heritage under an alias, but after earning the affection of German soldier Frederick Zoller (Daniel Brühl, Good Bye Lenin!), she finds herself in a unique position both dangerous and influential. The details of what happens next need not be discussed here. The fun of Inglourious Basterds is the way it unspools in surprising directions and weaves its characters’ paths together.

This being a Tarantino film, Inglourious Basterds features great music, albeit less prominently featured than in the director’s previous movies. The soundtrack is often submerged in the background, comprised largely of scores from spaghetti westerns, with the exception of a well-placed Bowie song. It’s all part of Tarantino’s restraint as a director, keeping the focus on a given scene’s action.

Those expecting a historical depiction of WWII should be warned: the war is used only as a backdrop for Tarantino’s story. He is much more interested in the culture-clash dynamics that result when one country occupies another than he is in combat action, and while the film has its share of violent moments, none occur on the battlefield. Tarantino uses history to tell his story rather than the other way around and to say that he takes a liberty or two with historical accuracy is an exercise in understatement. This is a revenge story uninterested in creating a sympathetic view of the Nazis and it plays by its own rules.

Inglourious Basterds combines the inventive stylization and offbeat humor of Pulp Fiction with the maturity and restraint of Tarantino’s underrated Jackie Brown, while also adding a newfound sense of ambition that allows the film to reach heights previously unseen by the director. If this isn’t Tarantino’s best film, it easily stands alongside his best, and he knows it too. He all but calls the film his masterpiece twice, but when a director’s self-assuredness works this well, his cockiness only adds to the film’s charm.

- Steve Avigliano, 9/1/09

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

LIST: The Best Films of 2008

For various reasons, it took me a while to catch up with last year’s releases, and I’ve only just finished watching 2008’s more prominent films. Fortunately, just about all of these movies are now out on DVD for your renting, Netflixing, or I suppose, torrenting pleasure. Since the list is arriving late, I thought I’d make this part 1 of a two-part post. The following are my Top 10 films of 2008, with my favorites of the first half of 2009 to be posted in the coming days.

Honorable Mention - a few films that just missed the list, but I still feel a great deal of respect or affection for:

Doubt for creating drama out of the unsaid and the ambiguous.

Gran Torino because Clint Eastwood growled (and unfortunately sung) in an excellent performance.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall for introducing non-HIMYM fans to Jason Segal’s smart, self-deprecating brand of humor.

Revolutionary Road for its brutal depiction of broken dreams in suburbia.

Synecdoche, New York because it’s confusing, maddening, possibly brilliant -- and I’m still not sure how I feel about it.

And now, the list...

10) Burn After Reading

I never had much intention of seeing Burn After Reading a second time, but it was on TV and thought I’d watch the first few scenes. Ninety-six immensely enjoyable minutes later I realized I had watched the whole thing straight through again. I used to say I wasn’t a fan of the Coen Brothers’ slapstick comedies, but this is a slick ride through a series of misunderstandings, coincidences and absurdities that moves so effortlessly it’s no wonder I didn’t notice I’d watched the whole thing again. Burn After Reading has a fantastic ensemble cast and is the second Coen Brothers film in a row (No Country For Old Men) to feature virtually perfect editing.

9) Slumdog Millionaire

Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later) proved here that despite working within starkly different genres, he has a kinetic visual and storytelling style all his own. The film bounces from the comedic to the tragic in a touchingly human story that proves the strength of emotion (and game shows) across cultures. Jai Ho all the way.

8) Vicky Cristina Barcelona

This breezy film from Woody Allen may have the feel of a minor work from the prolific writer/director, but it’s not to be dismissed. The film is one the best latter-day Allen films: an examination of interpersonal relationships affected by adultery with a healthy dose of cynicism. Pénelope Cruz steals countless scenes in an Oscar winning role, but it’s Rebecca Hall’s breakout performance that had me hooked. Add some beautiful shots of scenic Barcelona and crackling writing from Mr. Allen and you’ve got a film that is very hard to resist.

7) Waltz With Bashir

This “animated documentary” from Israel follows a filmmaker through a series of interviews in pursuit of memories from his days in the Israeli army during the Lebanon War of 1982. Using a stylish animation (“Not rotoscoping!” insists the animator on the film’s DVD) to bring former soldier’s accounts to life, Waltz With Bashir is an explosion of color and shape. It examines how the human mind deals with war and what happens to those memories years later. An emotional and intelligent film, equal parts war action and psychology.

6) In Bruges

Deepest apologies to Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Pineapple Express (both of which I enjoyed), but In Bruges is my favorite comedy of 2008. The blackest of comedies, this is a foul-mouthed, violent movie about two hitmen killing (pardon the pun) time in the tiny tourist trap of Bruges, Belgium. Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson boast the comfort of a classic comedy duo in their banter and Ralph Fiennes shows up at the end for an extended cameo that brings the film to bloody, but oh so wonderful finale. For those who love the politically incorrect or hearing the f-bomb in an Irish accent, a better film doth not exist.

5) Happy-Go-Lucky

A charming character study of the carefree and seemingly air headed Poppy (Sally Hawkins in an energetic and absorbing performance). Largely improvised, Happy-Go-Lucky follows Poppy as she hangs out with her friends, teaches kindergarteners, dates and (most memorably) gets driving lessons from an authoritarian instructor (Eddie Marson). Avoiding a standard plot, writer/director Mike Leigh chooses to follow several threads of Poppy’s life, in an effort to show all sides of her. The final result is not only representative of Poppy’s life, but also rings true on a more basic, human level. It is, at turns, laugh-out-loud funny and quietly poignant.

4) The Wrestler

The fourth film from Darren Aronofsky departs from such highly stylized films as Pi and Requiem for a Dream, choosing instead to simply observe its subjects. The film immerses the viewer in an honest portrayal of the life of a (fictional) former pro-wrestling star, Randy “The Ram” Robinson. Despite the sometimes brutal violence that occurs in the ring, The Wrestler reveals pro-wrestling to be a supportive community of men that share a common interest and the film gets to the heart of what this man wants and needs in his life. I became more emotionally involved in Mickey Rourke’s performance in The Wrestler than any other this year, following his elation and depression with strong emotions of my own. The film examines how people can extend "fake" personas into their personal lives, and the very real effects that result. Exceptionally written, brutally directed and brilliantly acted.

3) Milk

By seamlessly combining historical footage with its dramatized portrayal of gay rights activist Harvey Milk, Milk has an authenticity few biopics possess. Director Gus Van Sant moves the movie at a fast pace, but finds the time to closely examine a man during a politically charged moment in history. Both entertaining and informative, Milk is an enjoyable experience that holds huge relevance for the current times. It also features a superb performance from Sean Penn who always impresses me by absorbing himself so thoroughly in his roles and a strong supporting role from Josh Brolin who has been building an impressive body of work as of late.

2) WALL-E

No other film this year showed more creativity both visually and narratively than WALL-E. It’s a touching story wrapped in an intelligent science-fiction film and might just be Pixar’s finest yet (although I still hold a candle for Finding Nemo). The environmental message never upstages the innocent romance that takes cues from old Hollywood films. WALL-E also pays tribute to such sci-fi classics as 2001. It is a hybrid of all these things, but mostly it’s just irresistibly charming.

1) The Dark Knight

There are very few things I can say about The Dark Knight without resorting to hyperbole or repeating what seem to have become clichés (“the greatest superhero film ever!” “a gripping crime epic!” “iconic!”). All of those things are true, but The Dark Knight gets my #1 spot because it is the most entertaining film this year. Because it is smart and stylish and just plain awesome. Because it has more quotable and memorable scenes than any other movie in recent memory. Because it unearthed an excitement in me not felt since childhood. As a fan of Batman, movies in general, and all of American pop culture, I embrace The Dark Knight with cape-soaring, coin-flipping, pencil-stabbing glee!

- Steve Avigliano, 7/31/09