Jackass 3D

Here’s where Jackass 3D lost me: we fade in on a miniature train set. As the train loops in and out between the small buildings of a town, the camera slowly pans back, showing as a green volcano.  Suddenly, explosive diarrhea shoots out of the top of the “volcano” which is, of course, some dude’s ass painted forest green.  Then more shit spews out.  Then some more. Then a last little bit.

All the surrounding Jackassers laugh uproariously before we see the exact same clip again, this time in slow motion.  Really?

Some of the stunts in the Jackass franchise (yes, it can be called a franchise, due to the shitload of money the films make) are actually quite funny.  Can I tell you what any of them are?  Of course not.  Why?  Because for every hilarious stunt, there is five supremely disgusting ones.

The Volcano Shitter is just the beginning.  There’s flying a remote-controlled helicopter that is tied to the end of a guy’s dick, drinking the sweat produced from an obese man’s workout, and strapping a mini video camera next to a guy’s balls as he proceeds to urinate on members of the film’s cast and crew.

This isn’t funny.  It’s fucking gross.  And that’s probably why the theatre I was in, filled almost entirely with 18-27 year old males and their girlfriends, didn’t laugh once during any of those skits.

Beyond the grossness of it all, here’s what I was thinking while watching this film:

• Smart to put it in 3D, which undoubtedly helped propel it to a $50 million opening weekend
• What kind of drugs are these guys on?
• How much of this is real?  (Which stunts are completed using legit stuntman and/or visual effects?)
• When will it be over?

The answer to my last question couldn’t come soon enough.  D-

Nowhere Boy

Nowhere Boy is an unnecessary film about a very necessary man.

It’s slow, often boring, and lazy in its rock ‘n’ roll performances.  Which is speaking poorly of a film that chronicles the teenage years of John Lennon.

Now for the good stuff.  The acting is flawless.  Which rests mostly on the shoulders of lead Aaron Johnson, the 20-year-old actor who is leaps and bounds away from his leading role in Kick-Ass earlier this year (was I the only one who didn’t know the kid was a Brit?)

Johnson embodies what we think a young John Lennon would look and act like.  He’s arrogant, pompous, bloody talented and horribly damaged.

His damage mostly lies in the fact that his mentally ill mother (an Oscar-worthy Anne-Marie Duff) left him to be raised by his strict aunt (Kristen Scott Thomas, again proving she’s one of the most talented actress working in film) when he was a child.

John is pissed about it.  And when he reconnects with his mother, their relationship is eccentric yet tender, fun yet troubled.  But, if a movie is described as being about John Lennon, you came for one thing, and that’s the music.

Despite the fact that, during the course of the film, John meets two fellas named Paul and George, don’t expect any Beatles tracks.  We’re too early for that.  Instead we’re privy to a few small shows where a Bud Holly/Elvis Presley-inspired John crones out slight tunes for the ladies.

I say slight because, for some reason, when John starts singing through the mic, it’s as if the sound in the film gets turned down.  I know what 43-year-old director Sam Taylor-Wood is doing here, I think. She’s making the music sound how it did back then.  The crude percussion, the mono tone; I get it.  But it takes away from the film as a whole, which is a subtle way of saying that it isn’t technically well done.

Die hard Lennon fans should enjoy Nowhere Boy.  By no means did I hate it, but it could’ve been more.  Much more. B-

Note: Why did I make a point to say how old the lead actor and director are?  Because they’re engaged, and she’s having their baby in the next few months.  Well played, young man.  Get it.

Red

I’ve been hearing a lot of comparisons between this over-the-top comic book action flick and The Expendables, another recent over-the-top action flick.  I don’t think the comparisons are with merit.  Why?  Because one of them is laughably enjoyable, while the other is just laughable.

If you’re going to make a movie that spoofs an entire genre, then make your spoofing more obvious.  We’re led to believe, I think, that Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich and Morgan Freeman don’t want to be taken seriously as a slew of retired spies trying to clear their names.  But they sure as shit seem to be taking the whole ordeal very seriously.  Although, not as much as their director.

However, I must admit that it is immensely enjoyable to watch Dame Mirren standing behind a giant ass machine gun, straight-faced as she blasts bad guys halfway to hell. Yeah, that’s badass (and, ahem, kind of hot).  The rest of the film, however, is not.

Shit blows up, people give long speeches before they fail at killing someone, visual effects are used to achieve wild stunts; and it’s all so kid-friendly.  What’s with rating these balls-to-the-wall action flicks PG-13?  Lame.

Malkovich is getting damn good at perfecting neurotic, LSD-laced characters, and Freeman and Willis have enjoyed cashing out their last few flicks, but it’s all so damn tired.

I liked The Expendables, for the same reason I enjoyed Piranha 3D: they don’t take themselves seriously.  Red is more than a throwaway action movie, it’s a throwaway action movie that wants to be treated as a decent action movie. Sorry.  D

Secretariat

There's a perfect word to describe a movie like Secretariat: Capracorn.

Frank Capra was known for making happy-go-lucky, all's well that ends well, tales that, late in his career, began to be deemed "corny" by critics.

Capracorn. A movie that, while not notably impressive, will be suitable for the whole family, and leave you with a feel-good mentality.

That's Secretariat, through and through. The movie, a true story that chronicles the great horse's victory of the Triple Crown, and the struggles of his owner Penny (Diane Lane) to get him there, is a wondrous family film that will have you cheering at the screen and brimming with joy.

Problem is, you have to be into that sort of thing.

There are a few genres of film that I choose not to critique. For the most part, I get nothing out of animated films. Sure there may be one standout a year, but I can usually predict, to the minute, what will happen in a cartoon movie. Same goes for chick flicks and horror films. And the same, as is the case here, goes for live-action family films.

Most movies released under these genres make a decent amount of money. Why? Because most movie goers want what they've already seen 50 times. And that's fine. You are the ones that feed the Hollywood system and make it a success. And without that money-grubbing system, there would be no way to independently finance smaller films. So, thanks.

Anyway. If you're moved by it's trailer, you're going to like Secretariat. No question. You'll enjoy (or not even notice) the cheesy, I-feel-another-speech-coming-on dialogue. The battlefield music the reveals how a scene will end as it's just beginning. The period costumes that look oddly dated.  In short, you'll love the sentimentality of it all.

Diane Lane has proven that she's a talented actress. But her performance, much like the rest of the film, doesn't make the slightest attempt to challenge her. Everything is done by-the-book with formulaic generality. Think Seabiscuit meets The Blind Side. (Which, for my money, isn't saying much.)

I don't have children and I'm not a grandparent, but I can imagine it is nice to be able to go to a movie theatre with your entire family and all be able to enjoy (some more than others) a film together.

There's nothing inherently wrong with Secretariat. Just like there's nothing wrong with Life As We Know It, or I Spit On Your Grave. But, you know, you have to be into that sort of thing.

Which I'm not. What can I say? I'm not here to agree with you. D+

Waiting for "Superman"

These kids are Waiting for "Superman"

Too. Much. Information. That's how this new, highly buzzed about documentary plays out. Much like director Davis Guggenheim's last film, An Inconvenient Truth, topical problems are discussed in a fresh, stylized way. But there is too much going on. Several times while watching Al Gore's presentation, I kept thinking, "Jesus, I didn't know I had to take notes." Waiting for "Superman" is just like that. Informative, yes. But to a fault.

America's public education system is flawed nearly to the point of no return. Dropout rates are higher than ever. Our worldwide rank in math and science scores keeps dropping at an alarmingly (embarrassingly) hasty rate. Teachers are criticized worse than ever on their merit. And on and on.

Thanks much in part to this film, all of these issues are currently in the forefront of national attention.

So what can be done about it?

After watching Waiting for "Superman", I have no idea. You know why? Because this is a movie that talks, and presents, a great game, but offers little to no insight on how to fix such a damaged system.

To be fair, that isn't entirely true. Problems are offered seemingly feasible resolutions from important-looking people that, because their dressed in a power suit, we should be listening to. But the solutions, much like the problems, aren't discussed in depth. At all.

For five minutes, Guggenheim's film focuses on the ease of reaching tenure as a public school teacher, and how hard it is to fire lousy educators. Then... the film moves on. Google says they can't find enough qualified Americans to hire, so they look elsewhere. Then... the film moves on. The education and teacher's unions are stunting the need for change. Then... the film moves on.

You get it.

If you've seen the film's trailer, you think you're in for a documentary that focuses on a few inner-city kids who are being damaged by the underwhelming abilities of the public school system. They each enter lotteries in hopes of being accepted to charter or private schools.

This is in the film, but only for the final 20 minutes. And once Guggenheim settles down from all the facts and bar graphs and pie charts and lame cartoon graphics, he touches on some seriously compelling stuff. What these kids are going through, and the fact that their fate is decided by the drop of a lottery ball, or the random scroll of a computer, is easily the highlight of the film.

During the film's final moments, I kept thinking about Hoop Dreams, the fantastic 1994 documentary that chronicles the struggles of two inner city youths, who have both been prematurely deemed as the next Michael Jordan. That film, which Roger Ebert called the best of the '90s, says nothing about the hardships of daily life in the inner city, but at the same time, it says everything about the hardships of daily life in the inner city.

Waiting for "Superman" touches on that point, but by then, it's far too late. Don't get me wrong, this film presents several valid, note worthy points; all of which need to be scrutinized and investigated. But it presents far too many of them. A five-part miniseries on HBO (or PBS, for that matter) would've suited Guggenheim's material far better.

I care about the kids. How they feel, how they act. I could care less what Bill Gates thinks about America's lack of education. Why? Because all of the money he has donated towards the cause has had little to no impact.

Had Waiting of "Superman" picked one, or two, or even three, issues to discuss (and offer sound resolutions for), it could've been great. But, sadly, the final imagine of this movie, arguably the most moving scene of any film so far this year, is wasted among the statistics. B-

Let Me In

Lina Leandersson in Let the Right One In/ Chloe Moretz in Let Me In

Two years ago, a small Swedish film redefined the vampire genre by stripping down everything we’d seen recently regarding the fanged beasts.  Let the Right One In was, simply put, the anti-Twilight.

A 12-year-old bullied boy meets a very old female vampire who’s stuck in a 12-year-old body.  The two form an unlikely friendship, but not without a little blood being shed.  Sound silly?  Far from it.

A few things director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) has going for him in this revamp: his casting and subtle action shifts.  Abby, as played by Kick-Ass’s Chloe Moretz, fits perfectly into this lonely vampire’s world.  While The Road’s Kodi Smit-McPhee uses his saddened innocence to lead his character’s fear.

You have to give Reeves credit for not dumbing down his remake, as so many American films do.  Instead, he keeps the Swedish version’s slow deliberate pacing, but not without adding in a few welcome shifts.

In Reeves’ film, Abby is fast and agile in her vicious attacks, an eerie gesture that deviates from the original.  Also, there’s an extended, unbroken POV shot of a car crash that will make your head spin.

However, I can still picture the original Swedish girl’s tortured face, and the original boy, with his long, Aryan hair, appears creepier, thereby a better fit for his little vamp. 

Also, the original ending, one of the very best, most badass endings to a horror film I’ve ever seen, is untouchable.  Why?  Well, like most American horror films, they think something has to be dark to be scary.  Watch the original film to prove that notion wrong.

Maybe I’m being a little too hard on Let Me In.  But what do you expect?  When you remake a perfectly good horror film just two years after its release, you’re going to be harshly judged. 

Let the Right One In made no money in American theatres but has since reached cult status on DVD.  While Let Me In isn’t better, it does a damn fine job trying to be.  I’m just not entirely sure it is necessary.  B

The Social Network

Would you watch a movie about Tom Anderson creating MySpace?  How about a flick that chronicles the founders of Google netting their first zillion?  Neither would I.  So, why make a movie about Facebook?  I mean, seriously, who gives a shit?

People who love, like or simply enjoy movies, that’s who.  Here’s why.

Mark Zuckerberg, the youngest billionaire ever, created Facebook in 2003 when he was a sophomore at Harvard.  After the site gained gargantuan success, he ended up getting sued by two different parties who felt Zuckerberg had suckered them out of billions of dollars.

Simple, right?  But, for what it’s worth, that’s what David Fincher’s damn-near flawless film, The Social Network, is about.  But, like all great films, the plot isn’t nearly as interesting as the execution.

You’ll fall in love with this movie during its first scene.  The scene, staged in a crowded bar, involves Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and his girlfriend (Rooney Mara) bantering back and forth about the troubles of youth.  This is screenwriting as an art form.  Writer Aaron Sorkin, who’s made a career out of making his dialogue snap crackle and pop in works like The West Wing and A Few Good Men, delivers his best work in years, having his characters speak a mile a minute in Harvard-appropriate discourse.

But the words are only the beginning.  Eisenberg, who I’ve found increasingly annoying save two good performances in Roger Dodger and The Squid in the Whale, is a revelation here.  In one of the most challenging films roles so far this year, Eisenberg takes it in stride.  He nails Sorkin’s asshole, genius, superior, isolated version of Zuckerberg, while filling Fincher’s frame seamlessly.

Speaking of assholes, let’s discuss the film’s best role, thereby producing its best performance.  After losing all of his money due to hundreds of lawsuits, Napster founder Sean Parker set his sights on Zuckerberg, coaching him on the practicalities of his site (step one, lose the “The” in TheFacebook.com). 

In what could be a simple, throwaway role, Justin Timberlake turns it into a scene-stealing work of bravado.  Timberlake, arguably the most recognizable face in the world right now, takes egotistical arrogance to a completely new level.  He plays Parker as a smart, know-it-all God for the Gen-Y crowd. 

Watch, in the film’s best scene, when Zuckerberg’s best friend and business partner Eduardo (a New York-perfect Andrew Garfield) loses his shit in the Facebook corporate office.  Their argument may attract your attention, but watch Timberlake in the background, snootily sipping his coffee, obnoxiously chiming in at the best times.  Say what you will about Timberlake’s music career, but this is one hell of a talented actor.

As is evident in Fincher’s best work (Se7en, Zodiac), the man has a keen eye for the craft of cinema.  The narrative in which in chooses The Social Network to unfold, which will initially trick you, is ingenious.  Also, like all great auteurs, he constantly gives us something we’ve never seen before. 

No novice towards the use of digital effects, Fincher pulls off two feats in The Social Network that I’ve never seen on film.

First, he casts identical twins in roles of the ultra WASPy Winklevoss brothers, who are suing Zuckerberg.  The kicker is, the actors playing the twins aren’t related by blood. Fincher used one of their voices to dub both of the actors’ dialogue, and put one of their faces on both bodies.  It’s a far more impressive feat than anything Fincher pulled off in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. 

I can’t even describe the second moment, except to say that with some new use of digital photography, Fincher makes a simple rowing competition look like a visual poem.  I have no idea how he he did it, but I couldn’t take my eyes off of it.

The Social Network is the unlikeliest of great films.  It isn’t an epic, it doesn’t have a firm resolution, and it doesn’t make its case as 100 percent fact (Fincher says he made a fiction film, Sorkin says he wrote a nonfiction film.)  It will make you laugh, it won’t make you cry, but damn if it doesn’t stick in your head.  That is, in part, what makes it so good: it’s a little film about a topic more than 500 million people are aware of, that creeps up on you and stays.  You hear that?  That’s the starter’s pistol signaling the beginning of this year’s Oscar race.  A

the Directors: David Fincher

In 18 years and eight films, David Fincher has made a name for himself that most non-film enthusiasts would recognize.  He’s best known for conveying the familiarity of crime using unconventional, seedy methods.  Notorious for making his actors slog through dozens of takes, Fincher is nothing short of a down-to-the-tiniest-detail auteur. 

His latest, the Facebook flick The Social Network, is due this Friday.  It’s a deviation from form, but if David Fincher’s name is in the credits, I’m there.

Alien3 (1992)

Well, everybody has to start somewhere.  At least Fincher admits that this is garbage.  He so hated the Big Brother control that the studio had over the film, he walk out before editing even began.  Wise choice. D+

Interesting Fact: Before Fincher came on as director, Vincent Ward (What Dreams May Come), Walter Hill (48 Hrs.), Renny Harlin (Die Hard 2), among others, were scheduled to direct. 

Se7en (1995)

Here’s a bold statement to get you going: Se7en is the best serial killer/police procedural movie ever made.  Period.  Think about it.  How many serial killers movies never show the killer actually offing someone?  I can think of one. And it is called Se7en.  Aside from its beyond-skillful recreations of gruesome crime scenes, this movie is full of humor (“It would be great if we didn’t start off… kicking each other in the balls,”) and enough didn’t-see-that-coming moments to fill 10 movies.  Dozens of filmmakers have borrowed (stolen) from this film, which Fincher should take as a compliment, for Se7en is his masterpiece.  A+

Interesting Fact: Fincher lobbied hard to have the final lines of the movie removed (Freeman’s Hemingway quote), but ultimately lost out.

The Game (1997)

“What do you give the man who has everything?”  That’s the question that fuels this groovy psychological thriller.  Why do I always forget about this movie?  It’s clever as all hell, convincingly acted, and still manages to trip me up everytime I go back to it.  Michael Douglas fits effortlessly into Fincher’s warped take on how the rich live.  Some viewers may get frustrated by the film’s never-ending twists, but if it’s your first viewing, don’t worry, you’ll love it next time. A-

Interesting Fact: Jodie Foster was originally set to play that role that Sean Penn ended up taking over.  In a reversal of fortune, Sean Penn was supposed to be the lead in Flightplan, which Jodie Foster ended up starring in.

Fight Club (1999)

I’ll probably catch shit for this one.  Sorry, but Fight Club is not THE BEST FILM EVER OH MY GOD.  People swear by it, I know, but it’s not even Fincher’s second, or third best film.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s entertaining as hell and, like all of Fincher’s great films, it opens our eyes to a world we once knew nothing about.  But, it’s overrated.  It’s over long and seriously loses steam once the Project Mayhem segment begins.  Both Brad Pitt and Edward Norton are fantastic.  Like I said, it’s good, yes, but not great.  B

Interesting Fact: Despite its now cult status, Fight Club received mostly mediocre reviews upon its initial release and netted a measly $37 million at the box, nearly half of what it cost to make.

Panic Room (2002)

Like The Game, Panic Room is often forgotten as being a Fincher film.  Fincher has admitted that he used this film as a testing zone for the ground breaking CGI techniques that he used briefly in Fight Club.  Here, we get long, silent tracking shots of a gorgeously expansive Manhattan home.  The gimmick looks good, but it’s also the best part of the movie.  Jodie Foster flexes her skills rather well, but the run-of-the-mill ending is not at all like Fincher.  B-

Interesting Fact: The film's opening credits, arguably the aspect of the movie people remember the most, took over a year to complete.

Zodiac (2007)

Thank God Fincher took five years off, the result of which was this stirring film of utter excellence.  Chronicling one of America’s most notorious, and never official apprehended, serial killers is no easy feat, and at damn near three hours long, Fincher does it in stride.  Zodiac is so detailed, so expertly choreographed, that it rivals Se7en as a top-tier film in the crime genre.  There isn’t one flaw in any aspect of this movie.  To view it is to view two decades of American culture.  A great film. A

Interesting Fact: While it's no secret that Fincher is a glutton for multiple takes, Zodiac was where he got most Kubrick-esque.  Fincher would require 60 plus takes for some long shots, but up to 30 for the most mundane shots (like Jake Gyllenhaal throwing a folder in the passenger seat of his car).

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

Simply put: this movie doesn’t do it for me.  It’s overly sentimental, corny and to… damn… long.  I don’t mind the gimmick of someone aging backwards, nor do I think Pitt’s performance has flaws, but I have a great deal of trouble becoming emotionally invested in the film or its characters.  It has its great moments, but could’ve easily been an hour shorter.  C+

Interesting Fact: Along with being Fincher's first PG-13 rated movie, Benjamin Button is by all accounts Fincher's most successful film, earning $127.5 million, 13 Oscar nominations, and three Oscar awards.

The Social Network (2010)

Another Fincher work of art.  It's only October, but this film is already being hailed as the best movie of 2010.  It's a for-our-time movie that defines a decade.  How do you pull off a flick about Facebook?  Have Aaron Sorkin pen a scorcher of a script and cast more-than-capable actors to make the dialouge soar.  Then, put Fincher in the director's chair and let his impeccable eye for cinema take over.  The result?  A one of a kind film that resonates long after you leave the theatre.  A

Interesting Fact: Fincher cast identical twins in roles of the ultra WASPy Winklevoss brothers.  However,  the actors playing the twins aren’t related by blood. Fincher used one of their voices to dub both of the actors’ dialogue, and put one of their faces on both bodies

Easy A

Easy A is clearly trying to do for "The Scarlett Letter" what Clueless did for "Emma" and 10 Things I Hate About You did for "The Taming of the Shrew."  However, there’s just one slight difference between Easy A and those other films: it actually has a brain.

Don’t get me wrong, Clueless had an indelible impact on American society in the mid-‘90s (what that says about American society is another story) and I don’t like to rag on any film starring the late Mr. Ledger, but Easy A is smart, witty, at-times hysterical and is anchored in earnest truth.

The film is extremely fortunate to have Emma Stone in the lead role.  Stone, who we’ve all seen in Superbad and Zombieland, oozes with geeky sexuality while blurting out intelligent, not-so-PG-13-friendly dialogue in a role that is certain to make her a star.

Stone plays Olive, a carefree high school senior who, after attempting to do right by a friend, is quickly turned into the school slut.  Problem is, Olive’s a virgin, hell she’s never even kissed a guy.  But her high school peers perceive her as a tramp, and we all know what the high school thought process tells us: they think, therefore I am.

After Olive’s “whoring” antics quickly spin out of control (due much in part to her playing it up), she confesses her falsified sins via a webcast, which, of course, everyone in the school watches.

Look, is it all a little too cutesy and convenient?  God yes.  But, unlike most of its chick flick counterparts, Easy A has a well-working intellect.  Credit need first be placed on Stone but then on Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson, who play Stone’s breezy, happy-go-lucky, California liberal parents.

I’ve since read that Tucci and Clarkson only spent three days on set, and all the better, because their scenes, and almost every line of their dialogue, had me chuckling.  A few lines, Tucci’s in particular, had me laughing at loud.

I can’t remember the last time a high school-set comedy made me do that.  B-

Devil

This week has been abnormally cold.  Ten days ago I was wearing short sleeves, now I’m in a jacket.  Remember when we had all that snow last year, how many times did you say, “Christ I can’t wait ‘til it’s warm out.”  Or this summer, one of the hottest in recorded history for our region, you probably prayed for cold.

So, why don’t I mind that the weather has so suddenly shifted?  Because without these cold days, I wouldn’t appreciate the hot, and visa versa.

Horrible films, namely horrible horror films, are just like that.  To see a movie like Devil is to appreciate nearly every other film in the genre.  A movie like Devil serves no purpose; not only does it teach or show us nothing new, but by watching it, we may actually become dumber.

Remember M. Night Shyamalan’s disaster of a film, The Happening.  No?  You’re better off.  But there’s a scene about halfway through, when some whacked out botanist blankly predicts why people are killing themselves all across the country.  The man’s reasoning is lame (plants are doing it) and we aren’t meant to believe it.  However, as the movie nears its end, we realize that is EXACTLY why people are killing themselves.  Plants?  Really?  Dude, didn’t you make The Sixth Sense?

Devil is the exact same way. Although Shyamalan isn’t the director (he’s credited with producing and coming up with the film’s story) it’s got his washed-up name all over it.  Oh and how original: five people get stuck in an elevator and everytime the lights go out, someone dies!  Yikes!  And it’s PG-13!  How scary!

About halfway into the film’s excruciating 80 minutes, a Hispanic security guard explains to a police officer what may be going on in the elevator.  God-fearing or not, it is ridiculous.  And, of course, it all turns out to be true.

Did you see the trailer for this movie?  It was actually pretty good, until Shyamalan’s name appeared.  Then you knew you were in for shit.  Sorry, Night, you’re not a viable marketing ploy.  However, you do make me appreciate other horror films.  So... thanks?  D-

Never Let Me Go

What a damn fine film this is.  And a damn hard one to review, too.  Much like Catfish, saying too much is ruining the whole thing.  If you’ve been unfortunate enough to read reviews from the assholes at “People,” “Entertainment Weekly,” and other various media outlets, then the core drama of this beautiful film is all but busted.

Three youths become fast friends at a boarding school in England circa 1960.  But this isn’t your average school.  Something is different.  Again, to describe that “something” is to take the piss out of the whole thing, so forget it. 

At the age of 18, the trio of friends - the quiet, reserved Kathy (Carey Mulligan), the curious Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and the sorrowful Ruth (Keira Knightly) – are released from the school and sent to live in the quasi real world.  Even though they live in public, their lives are lived in a bubble, so sheltered from the way they were raised.

Most films with such suspicious plot elements hold out the big surprises for the final moments.  Not here.  Even as young children, the characters in this film know what is in store for them.  In short, you’ll know after 20 minutes of screen time what the big secret is.

So instead of dwelling on that, I need to convince you that this is a film worth seeing, even though you know next to nothing about it.

Never Let Me Go is based on Kazuo Ishiguro’s triumphant novel, a prose that “The New York Times” dubbed as one of the best of the decade.  And here, it is delicately brought to the screen by director Mark Romanek, whose only other film credit is the very good, very fucking freaky One Hour Photo.

What Romanek does with this film, on nearly every level, is breathtaking.  The film spans 25 years, but every time period is visually displayed in the same exact way.  Through sepia-infused cinematography and brown-muted costumes, the characters in Never Let Me Go appear as though they live in 1930s Britain, which is interesting, given that the film goes all the way to 1994.

The acting, on all accounts, is enough to get the attention of any Oscar voter.  By shedding some pounds off her already slender physique, Keira Knightly delivers by long and far her best performance yet, and Andrew Garfield excels as the film’s moral center. (Remember his name, he’s the second lead in Fincher’s new Facebook flick, as well as the rumored lead in the Spider-Man reboot.)

As I stated in my Wall Street 2 review, Carey Mulligan is proving herself as an actress of incredible emotional depth.  Never Let Me Go marks her fourth movie in which she has a substantial role, which is another way of saying that she’s stolen four movies over the past two years.

Now for the criticism.

The aforementioned reviews are having a blast picking and pulling and tweaking every little detail of this movie.  Why?  Well…

American’s, for the most part, like their cinema like they like their food: fast and cheap.  A lot of the criticism for this movie stems from the fact that not a lot happens.  Meaning there are no clichéd conversations in which every single problem is resolved in five script pages of dialogue.

So let me say this: something doesn’t have to be happening for something to be going on.  Inaction can still be an action.  Ever seen a Terrence Malick flick?  No?  How about Ingmar Bergman?  Still cold?  Try Jim Jarmusch, David Gordon Green, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Paul Thomas Anderson, Darren Aronofsky.  All have proved that movies don’t necessarily have to have action on the surface, for there to be something stirring underneath.  Look at Mulligan’s eyes in this movie, they say more than most actors do in an entire film.

And the other big thing: why don’t the characters in Never Let Me Go question what is to happen to them.  Well, that is simple.  Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth inhabit a world that doesn’t change.  They live in a world where their fate is their only option.  Escape isn’t a thought because… escape isn’t a thought. 

I haven’t been able to shake a single moment of this film in the time since I watched it.  It’s destined to be one of the best movies of the year. A

Catfish

How do you review a movie which is so surrounded in secret, that simply revealing what the seemingly irrelevant title means will ruin the whole film?

By now most of us have heard of that suspicious little movie in which a twentysomething from New York City meets a Michigan family online and soon begins to have a “Facebook” affair with the family’s 19-year-old daughter.  If you’ve seen the brilliantly realized trailer, then you know that’s just the beginning.  What Catfish promises is thrills and shocks and scares.  And ,dun dun duuuun, the truth.

After one of Nev’s photographs lands the cover of a New York publication, he soon receives a painting of his photo in the mail.  It’s from Abby, a talented 8-year-old Michigan girl who sells her paintings for thousands of dollars.  Nev’s older brother and friend, both amateur filmmakers, break out their equipment and decide to document the entire thing.

Nev’s relationship with Abby is sweet and tender, so no, the movie doesn’t take a To Catch a Predator turn.  Through Abby, a ridiculously prolific Facebook user, Nev meets her entire family.  Abigail, the young mom; Megan, the of-age sister with model-like looks; Alex, the musician brother, and several others.

Nev and Megan quickly hit it off, but something is up.  He wants to meet - drive to Michigan, whatever - but she’s never game.  She stalls and makes excuses and dodges most of his advances to actually take their relationship to the next level.  You know, the actual meet-you-in-person level.

That’s about all I can say.

It’s obvious from the trailer that something happens that deters the course of the film.  This is true.  But it isn’t what the trailer leads you to believe.  Catfish is, in no way, a horror movie.  Nothing spooky happens.  But, I feel it is necessary to hint at the fact that some of the people in this Facebook family are not exactly who they appear to be, but you probably already guessed that.

Without revealing the final third of the movie, which, I see no reason to; it’s hard to describe the moral dilemmas that the film raises.  Which leads me to my next, and probably biggest point.

Is it real?

I have no idea. Much like Casey Affleck’s film I’m Still Here, we are presented a story in a way that appears to be 100 percent fact.  Affleck recently admitted the exact opposite of his movie and while I appreciate the Catfish filmmakers fighting to declare their film as authentic, in the back of my mind, I keep wondering when the GOTCHA moment will come. As in, “nope, just kidding, it’s all bullshit.”

So let me say this: if it’s real, then it’s the work of three very skilled, very dedicated filmmakers who got very very lucky when they decided to film what started off as a meaningless correspondence.  If it’s fake, then some of the “actors” deserve Academy Awards.  One woman in particular, who I won’t name, delivers a “performance” that trumps anything Robert De Niro has churned out in the last 12 years.

But that’s only if it’s fiction.  If it’s real, her “performance” is just plain sad.  Not pathetic sad, but troubling sad.  As in we feel for her. Because, fact or fiction, we really do. B+

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

What made the first Wall Street good (not great) was that it broke down very complex, segmented issues for those who were fiscally inept.  But its sequel, alas, falls short of this criterion by a long shot.  And them some.

For most of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Oliver Stone’s follow up to his much better 1987 film, I hadn’t the slightest idea what the hell the main characters were talking about.  Like Stone’s last film, W., a lot of the characters in this Wall Street sit around large tables in large conference rooms talking about a familiar concept (money) by using complicated terms that only 5 percent of the American population will be able to understand.

I don’t expect to be able to comprehend every single detail of every single film, but if I don’t understand it, the material should at least be presented in a compelling way.  I have no idea how to diffuse a bomb, but that doesn’t make The Hurt Locker any less interesting.

Following the aftermath of the last film, Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) has just served an eight year bit in prison, and now, on the eve of the biggest American financial meltdown in history, he’s become a successful writer and motivational speaker.  After delivering one amusing speech, he’s stopped by stock market prodigy Jake (Shia LaBeouf) who tells Gekko that he will soon marry his estranged daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan).

That should be enough for a plot, but Stone weighs his film down with stock market revenge games involving the VP of a firm (Josh Brolin), Jake’s mentor (Frank Langella), and a bunch of suited-up rich dudes.  Other plot elements include Jake’s debt ridden mother (Susan Sarandon), and his fascination with… motorcycles.

I mean, Jesus Christ, why so much?

My main hesitation walking into this film was LaBeouf’s ability to pull off a lead role opposite Douglas reprising his best role.  To say LaBeouf pulls it off is an understatement.  The 24-year-old actor damn near carries the film, that is, unless his scenes are being stolen from Mulligan, who has every right to be argued as one of the best actresses of her generation.  The tender relationship the two share (which, of course, resulted into them having a real life relationship) is the highlight of the film.  The way Jake proposes to Winnie is touching and original; it’s a standout scene.

The rest of the acting is top notch. Brolin has a blast playing the gutless villain while Douglas fits seamlessly into the role that won him an Oscar more than 20 years ago.  And there is an obvious but extremely rewarding cameo that should earn applause from the audience. But the film is simply not compelling.  Maybe it’s because there is too much going on, maybe it’s because, at times, it’s hard to understand exactly WHAT is going on.

The blogosphere is blowing up with criticism surrounding this film’s ending.  I didn’t have a problem with it.  But maybe by then I was just glad it was over.  C

The Town

The best line in The Town, Ben Affleck's second directorial effort after his masterful Gone Baby Gone in 2007, will go missed by many because of its subtlety. 

Most of what  made Gone Baby Gone so memorable were the seemingly minor details that we picked up on during a second viewing. The throwaway lines, the quick glances, and so. The Town is just like that. Is it better, or even as good as Affleck's first? I'm not too sure, let's find out.

We are offered quotes in the beginning of the film stating that the troubled, crime ridden, Boston neighborhood of Charlestown has produced more bank robbers than any other neighborhood in the world. The Town is the story of four of them.

Doug (Affleck) heads a team of  thorough thieves who knock off armored cars and banks. He leads the crew with of his intelligence and precision, while his best friend, Jim (a flawless Jeremy Renner), enforces all the violently necessary tasks.

After the crew has to resort to nabbing a hostage (Rebecca Hall), they get some serious heat from the FBI, namely a go-for-broke agent (Jon Hamm).

With The Town, Affleck proves that Gone Baby Gone wasn't a fluke; the dude can direct. Period. 

In this film, he so perfectly stages a car chase that it reminds us of The French Connection. And a lengthy, detailed shoot out can be mentioned in the same breath as Heat. But beyond his excellence use of technique (dropping and bring back sound, reversing a time-lapsed sunset) Affleck will grow to be known as a guy that can seriously direct his actors.

Fresh off his should-of-won-the-Oscar performance in The Hurt Locker, Jeremy Renner steals every second he's on screen. As a psychopathic, tatted up badass, Renner outacts every one in the picture, which is saying a lot.

You've seen Rebecca Hall in a few things (The Prestige, Vicky Christina Barcelona, Please Give), but she's never been better than she is here. The "babe in the woods" routine of a hostage falling for her captor has been done tenfold, but not with Hall's convincing charm.

But by far the biggest surprise comes in the form of a young, smoldering blonde named Blake Livley.

I've never seen Livley act before (sorry, no Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants or Gossip Girl... shocker) for which I am grateful. As Doug's coked-out, oxy'd-up ex, Lively draws us in so convincingly, we forget who she is. Don't make the mistake of crediting her beauty. With a performance like this, looks have nothing to do with it. There's a scene she plays with Hamm that demands a broad range of emotions in a matter if seconds. She nails it. Lively does what Amy Ryan did in Gone Baby Gone, only better. Oscar, pay attention.

Blake Lively

If there are faults in the film, they come from Affleck the actor. He's had his moments in previous roles, and he does all right here, but I kept thinking how much more I would believe his character if it was played by someone else (Bale? Damon? Norton?). Oh well.

The Town stands pretty damn tall against the other crime "thrillers" released this year (The Losers, Takers, Armored). But that's not saying much. Everyone should enjoy this movie. It ain't perfect, but it's the work of a very skilled, only-to-get-better director.

Oh and that line. Towards the end of the film, Hamm reads a brief note that was left on his car. His silent reaction is amusing, but watch who he hands it to and listen to what he says when he does it. It's as perfectly-timed as anything he's delivered as Don Draper. Blink and you'll miss it. A-

2010 Fall Movie Preview

Save a few rare exceptions, 2010 has been one of the worst years in recent cinematic history.  Here are a few films that hope to curb that. Clicking the titles links you to the film’s trailer.

The Town: Sept. 17

Directed by Ben Affleck

After exceeding any and all expectations with Gone Baby Gone, Affleck’s Boston-set crime drama is already earning rave reviews.  I’ll go in skeptical, but most likely leave surprised.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps: Sept. 24

Directed by Oliver Stone

Stone has made it very clear that Michael Douglas reprising his role as Gordon Gekko will be a supporting performance to Shia LaBeouf.  Mistake?  Maybe.  But I’m there.

The Social Network: Oct. 1

Directed by David Fincher

Casting Jesse Eisenberg as your lead, in this case the founder of Facebook, could be disastrous.  But Fincher has no idea how to make a mediocre, disinterested film.  My favorite film critic, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, has already called this “the film of the year.”  That’s enough for me.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest: Oct. 15

Directed by Daniel Alfredson

If it’s anything like the first two, this final installment to the Swedish trilogy will be supremely badass.  Better news: Noomi Repace just hired the same publicist that helped an unknown Marion Cotillard earn the Best Actress Oscar in 2007.  Here we go…

Hereafter: Oct. 22

Directed Clint Eastwood

“I like to think of this as a chick flick, but one that men will like too.”  That’s about all Eastwood is telling us, but considering that Clint has been on a masterful streak since 2003’s Mystic River, you can expect this one to hit as well.

127 Hours: Nov. 5

Directed by Danny Boyle

Not many directors could pull off a movie in which its main character is pinned down by a rock for most of its running time.  The film will rest entirely on star James Franco’s shoulders.  If we don’t believe him, then it will flop. Which… I doubt.

Fair Game: Nov. 5

Directed by Doug Liman.

The true story of ousted CIA agent Valerie Plame is to be played by Naomi Watts with Sean Penn as her husband.  Count me in.

Black Swan: Dec. 1

Directed by Darren Aronofsky

The man responsible for the best film of 2008 (The Wrestler) will deliver again with this creepy, pseudo sci-fi mystery about two dueling ballerinas. 

The Fighter: Dec. 10

Directed by David O. Russell

Easily the film I’m looking forward to most this fall.  Mark Walhberg is finally able to bring his years-long passion project, about real-life boxer “Irish” Mickey Ward, to the screen.  Christian Bale, who got Machinist thin for his role as Ward’s drug-addicted trainer, could finally score that Oscar nom.

True Grit: Dec. 25

Directed by Joel and Ethan Coan

The Coen brothers take on the same novel, about a drunken U.S. Marshall who helps a girl find her father, that landed John Wayne his only Oscar.  The Wayne film isn’t particularly great, but I imagine this will be.  Could Jeff Bridges be the first actor since Tom Hanks to land back-to-back Best Actor Oscars? 

Biutiful: Dec. 29

Alejandro González Iñárritu's first film since Babel.  Sold.

Another Year: Dec. 31

Directed by Mike Leigh

Leigh is one of the very best living filmmakers, and his latest, about an aging married couple, earned raves at the Cannes Film Festival in May. It makes no difference what Leigh’s films are about, as long as they have his unique stamp, I’m there.

Blue Valentine: Dec. 31

Directed by Derek Cianfrance

Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams brought the house down at Sundance for their portrayal of a tumultuous couple who fall in and out of love.  Details are mum, which is good.  Expect serious awards attention. 

And a few more to keep track of:

Never Let Me Go is full of murky plot details, but it’s impressive cast and talented director should make it worth while. Sept. 15

Catfish appears to be a… documentary?  Maybe?  Who cares.  It boasts the best trailer of the year. Sept. 17

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger is Woody Allen’s annual film (he’s made nearly one a year since 1976), for better or worse.  Sept. 22

Buried has exactly at stake what 127 Hours does. Can Ryan Reynolds pull off a solo act of a guy trapped in a coffin with just a lighter and cell phone?  I don’t know, but I’m intrigued. Sept. 24

Waiting For “Superman” examines America’s flawed education system.  Should be a tearjerker. Sept. 24

Let Me In (Oct. 1) and Paranormal Activity 2 (Oct. 22) won’t be as good as their originals, but I’ll give them a shot.

Conviction is serious Oscar bait for Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell.  Could come off as a bit too melodramatic though. Oct. 15

The Next Three Days looks a little too far fetched.  But Paul Haggis’ hands are capable enough I suppose. Nov. 19

The King’s Speech is already generating some serious Oscar buzz for Colin Firth.  The Academy is always a sucker for those period British flicks. Nov. 24

Miral is Julian Schnabel’s latest, which means that I have no idea what it’s about, but I’m sure it’ll be great. Dec. 3

Somewhere is Sofia Coppola going all Lost in Translation on us, which is worth (another) shot. Dec. 22