COMING WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE DAYS...CLASSIC FILM CORNER #20

Stay tuned for the next installment in the exploration of landmarks in the history of cinema, one that my partner will recognize immediately....

ROAD TO PERDITION!!!

And from everything I have heard from friends and people at Oxford, this is sure to not be a somber and melancholy experience at all....oh Heaven, help me. XP

Silver Linings Playbook

As strange as it is to say, there are few things I enjoy more as a reviewer than being proven wrong. Chances are, if you've read us before, then my opinion on romantic comedies is no secret. More often than not, they merely coast on a bit of star power and enough jokes to make an enticing trailer, resulting in something that's cute instead of romantic and quaint instead of funny. My skepticism tends to double when a movie is presented as the token romantic comedy once awards season rolls around. Even the name Silver Linings Playbook suggests the kind of tacky feel-good message we've heard to many times before. I suppose this is where I make some awful pun about not judging a playbook by its cover.

Silver Linings Playbook stars Bradley Cooper as Pat Solitano, a man recently released from a mental institution following a divorce and a violent breakdown. The movie follows him as he moves back in with his family as part of his release, readjusts to life on the outside, and chases the futile prospect of winning back his ex-wife. Without question, Cooper's performance is the film's heart and soul. He brings the kind of likability that's only possible from an actor not trying too hard to be likable. His character screws up, throws tantrums (including a hilarious rant on Hemmingway) and constantly tests the patience of everyone around him. Too often, characters with mental disorders get oversimplified to the point that the disorder becomes the character, but in this case Pat's condition is equal parts impediment and driving force as he tries to put his life back together.

All of this serves as a backdrop for an unusual relationship with a recently widowed family friend who has issues of her own to work out. Jennifer Lawrence plays girl next door Tiffany with surprising charm. She's believably damaged yet uplifting in her own way without falling into manic pixie territory. What makes this movie really work is that her character and Cooper's clash and connect over meaningful things. They deal with disappointment and they pick themselves (and each other) back up in their search for a silver lining.

The humor is spot-on for the most part, stemming primarily from legitimate character flaws instead of silly misunderstandings. In that respect, I really have to give credit to the supporting cast. Not only do we get one of Robert DeNiro's better late-career performances, we also get Chris Tucker being genuinely funny without his trademark obnoxiousness.

In case I haven't made it clear already, Silver Linings Playbook is the rare romantic comedy that pulls off genuine comedy and romance. Unless you're afraid of having A Farewell to Arms spoiled for you, I recommend it to anyone looking for a smarter, more serious movie to laugh along to.

Score:

CLASSIC FILM CORNER #19: Groundhog Day, Version 2.0

                In the process of deciding which film to use to resume my look at classic films, one piece of information did prove very useful: my genre-spanning list of films to see for my attempt to watch a new cinematic output each day for a year.  While that (as explained in my previous column) had admittely mixed results, the list remains a solid reference point.  So when my partner thought I should start with something from comedy, I picked one out that was available and seemed enjoyable.  And at first, nothing extraordinary was involved....but slowly, about an hour into the film, I noticed that my thoughts about the film seemed familiar.  Then, at one notable scene halfway through, it hit me: I was watching a film I've already reviewed for this series (link at the end of this article).  Apparently, the phenomenon of deja vu may validly emerge in the real world after all...but oddly enough, it turned out to be a good selection after all.

CLASSIC FILM CORNER #19: Groundhog Day (Revisited)

                It must be acknowledged that a more thorough description of this plot point has already been written by me in the past, and Heaven forbid I be accused of rehashing my own material.  So I leave the link below for those who want a more detailed description of the film's chain of events.  However, for those of you who have not seen that column, I shall do my best to give a brief summation and critique nonetheless...but in the process, I'd like to dig a little deeper. 

                Bill Murray plays the egotistical and sardonic meteorologist Phil Connors, who is sent on an assignment to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, in order to see the town-titular groundhog predict whether spring will come soon - although Phil, judging by his frustration at doing the same assignment numerous times, initially seems to believe the future is bleak in any case.  Accompanying him is his long-time cameraman Larry (Chris Elliott) and his new producer Rita (Andie MacDowell), one of whom acts as the comic relief and the other as the romantic interest - it was a mainstream US success in the 1990s, so I'll let you guess which one plays which role.  The good news is, however, that the first role of a comedy is indeed adhered to from the start: the characters are both multi-dimensional and likeable.  Phil is indeed a sarcastic a**hole, but Murray's effective sense of humor makes him enjoyably so and the bitterness that can come from feeling stuck in a rut, trapped in one place or state of affairs (in work or elsewhere), is completely relatable.  Conversely, Rita and Larry remain optimistic and upbeat in regarding Phil, but does not mean that they overlook or are ignorant of his major faults.  Similar to Marge rolling her eyes at Homer's shortcomings, they simply choose to not let his attitude get to them - which says far more about their personalities, and leaves it up to Phil to work out his own issues.

                And work them out he needs to, once he begins to discover that he is reliving the same day - February 2nd - over and over again.  Keep in mind that this is not a dumb character, so the methods he uses to learn about his situation (and its implications) are both subtle and refreshing.  And that is the best word for describing the writing in this film: subtle. [Please note: I am officially now a fan of any project headed by Harold Ramis, who here serves as a director with remarkable attention to detail. Who knew that he did not need to refer to his epididymis to be compelling?] When I first tackled this film a couple years ago, I considered it a major flaw in the movie that its laughs were less laugh-out-loud due to the repetition in how the story was fraed.  But this time around, it's become clear that the repetition is not a distraction from the humor, the repetition IS the humor that Murray effectively bounces off of.

                The fact that we see, over and over again, the effects of one little change in this restaurant or on that street puts a significant amount of pressure on what choices Phil comes to make.  Because for all intents and purposes, all joking in the film aside, make no mistake: Phil is a god while under this condition.  He is immortal (as is tested several times), he eventually knows everything about everyone in the groundhog's home town (also emphasized), and if he wanted to, he could spend eternity savoring such power for the sake of self-gratification.  In this sense, such a cycle is both the ultimate horror and the greatest escape for all of Phil's anxieties and frustrations.  The only problem is this: even with unlimited potential under such conditions, it's no way to live.

                With that in mind, Murray's responses can either make or break this film, since any sort of development depends on his ability to sell change even as Feburary 2nd repeats itself.  His responses demonstrate a sequence of thinking quite logical:

• He is initially in denial, or believes himself to be having deja vu.
• He decided to test his theory, by multiple methods.
• He comes complacent...
• ...a hedonist...
• ...a manipulator...
• ...suicidal...and finally...

He becomes proactive.

                His triumph ironically comes from making the most of the present by not dwelling on it, treating each day as an opportunity for him to build knowledge and improve in some skill or sense of selflessness - even if no one knows about such incremental progress but himself.  After all, for all anyone in that sleepy town knows, he could have always been so talented, Phil could have sold it that way and he never would have learned anything (and actually, Rita unwittingly calls him out on this when he tries this route at first).  No, the key comes from the fact that no matter what advantages you have in your life, the one that can never be taken for granted is actually being alive in the first place - the fact that one is never successful without a connection to others, and is never truly a failure when it is present.

                The rest of the cast's acting is extraordinary, with actors left and right being given the near-impossible task of not falling into autopilot when tedious scene-shooting could have made them feel bored or unmotivated.  MacDowell and Elliott are both believable in their responses to Murray's evolution, showing the right mix of suspicion and relief when he slowly comes around (since, you know, for them in every "loop", he was always an a**hole just the day before).  Without such a graded shift, any sort of responses to the protagonist would have felt forced and removed any sense of consistency in the way their characters are initially presented.  The same applies to the cinematography and the extensive detail placed into setting the small-town atmosphere, which relies on mixing familiarity and novelty in a manner that would make any serious contemplator of "What if?" scenarios proud (Hello, Bill Simmons!).  Can you imagine what it would have been like if they tried to make every loop completely different in nature, where each change in Phil's routine leads to some earthquake in China?  Thankfully, all butterfly effects here are restricted to Punxsutawney, as is reasonable for the scope of this story.

                So is this film a quieter comedy than most?  Yes.  Can one feel like the story arc drags a bit at times?  It is inevitable when one day's events are replayed ad infinitum.  But while the concept does occasionally lead to some shaky execution on the screen, it is one that ultimately is both light-hearted and enlightening.  Just as importantly, it taught me a very valuable lesson about watching films in general: as one grows and evolves over time, the way you respond to movies can change too.  That is why a person's favorite films often are tied to a particular time of their life - it resonates with who they were at that stage of their existence, and thus has become integrated seamlessly with how they have come to become a (hopefully) more mature and well-rounded person.  I have films on my "10 Favorites" list that I first saw when I was 6, some when I was in college, and even one from a few weeks ago.  And in a weird way, that is a very good and natural growth, even if it does bitterswettly explain why some things from my childhood do not appeal to me as much now. 

(Except for Pokémon, that'll be awesome forever!)

[Revised Final Rating: 9 shadows spotted out of 10]

To see my first review of this film, please use the following link:
http://watchhombres.blogspot.com/2011/02/groundhog-day-day-13.html

Classic Film Corner: A Revival and Remodeling

Hey readers, welcome to WatchHombres! Whether you are seeing us on this blog for the first time, or regarded our opinions at this site's inception ages ago, we thank you for visiting us. Hopefully, my partner will present his introductory sentiments too, but for now, here's my two cents.

To be perfectly honest, there is an element of hesitancy in knowing exactly how to resume my blog postings of classic films after such an extended hiatus. Such an impediment is not technically from not knowing what I think of today's film, or a lack of writing experience during the interval. In all likelihood, it probably has more to do with how I approached the matter of reviewing classic movies last time - where the gimmick of seeing 365 films in a year unwittingly took top precedence, and thus made presentation gradually overshadow passion to a particular degree.

Needless to say, I burned out.  Very quickly, which I do apologize for.

I don't plan on making the same mistake this time, so I need to first ask what it is that my primary intention is - and frankly, it is no longer the countdown or even movies themselves. It is instead these two questions:

1. How do we know when a story justifies your time and attention?
2. What should my role be in helping answer Question 1?

In Question 1, I hope readers notice that I did not include "money" as a parameter. Simply put, there are plenty of resources (of varying degrees of legitimacy, admittedly) for people to watch classic films without paying an extra dime, and everyone is capable of seeking those resources out. No, for me, it's a person's time that is priceless and more important, and it is thus essential to examine the intent and execution displayed by the filmmakers who are given such a commodity.

Do they pay particular attention to detail, or is the delivery sloppy? Is effort evident in the way their form of art gets presented, or is it phoned in? And can you truly believe that they'd be satisfied with their efforts, even if they just made the movie and did not make anything off it?  For me, such questions are what strike the line between making a quota and making a living, between having a job and forming a career...and more often than not, serves as the backbone for a truly classic film. So what is my role in this process?

From my perspective, the best way I how how to endorse a film is to discuss how it resonated in my own experience, because that is all I have to go on. When it has managed to do so to a significant degree, then I'll feel confident in passing it on to others. But that means my approach to writing these reviews may seem a bit more casual and blunt, less like reading an article and more like having a conversation (which I encourage from you as well).

• So I'm not going to spend 80% of the review describing the plot, since that is what watching the film and reading IMDB is for.
• I'm not going to go crazy with flowery language that attempts to turn each statement into its own art form, because then it will become less about you and more about self-indulgence.
• But most of all, I am NOT going to tell you what is objectively good, because simply put, I can't.  

Everybody has their own opinions and a right to them, and whatever works as a film for you is wonderful. All I can do is use my perspective, as I try to learn more about where film's been and is going, in order to give a different perspective - an more analytic, spoiler-free approach that is, above all else, personal.

So I'm going to do my best to resume a steady pace, but will now put out the articles up only when I feel they are adequate and up to my standards (a process which will hopefully show improvement, in speed and quality, over time). In turn, please don't hesitate to leave comments, criticisms, or suggestions for films you consider classic and warranting examination. Above all else, I hope you have fun reading my work and responding to it however you choose to.

Take whatever views you feel best for each film we discuss, but these are mine. Here's to a fruitful journey.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Why anyone thought the world needed another Pirates movie I don't know. The third film, for all of its other flaws, at least had every major plot point resolved in a mostly satisfying manner. So why, aside from the money incentive, make another? Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides does little to answer that question, but for a film that immediately gives you so many reasons to hate it, it surprisingly gets a lot of things right, like returning the darker themes of the original and taking the time to build atmosphere.

Perhaps I'm alone in this respect, but Jack Sparrow got old for me really quickly. In the first movie he was great because there was subtlety to his method and his true loyalties were a fun mystery to unravel. But with each installment after that he's become more and more of a cartoon character to the point where it got hard to care whose side he was on. On Stranger tides is no exception, and Sparrow's goofy antics stick out against the movie's darker tone like, well, a Disney character in a film about murderous cutthroats. There's not even a need for metaphor.

Thankfully Geoffrey Rush comes back as Barbosa, a character just as interesting as Depp's Sparrow but undiluted by attempts to milk as much humor out of him as possible. The side cast is once again adequate if not memorable. Ian McShane plays a likably villainous Blackbeard and Penelope Cruz adds some charm to the cast as Blackbeard's daughter Angellica. The love/hate relationship between her and Jack Sparrow is, well, just there. It's the same teasing rivalry/romance subplot you've seen shoehorned into countless movies before but it's at least handled adequately enough to be worth seeing one more time. The only throwaways are the missionary and the mermaid, who have an absolutely useless romantic subplot.

What On Stranger Tides does benefit from, however, is limiting its scope to a specific mission and sticking to it. As the last two movies showed, mixing the slapstick antics of Disney fare with the scope of an epic story just doesn't work because the action only gets louder and more muddled rather than convincingly bigger. And while On Stranger Tides avoids the pitfalls of silly looking CG monsters and absurdly complex action set-pieces, but it does repeat the mistake parts 2 and 3 made of piling up too many plot points at the end. That said, there's still a satisfying finish that makes all the buildup worthwhile.

But if there's any one reason to watch this film, it's once again Hans Zimmer's terrific score. This time it's more moody and atmospheric, with less of the gaudy adventure vibe of previous installments, but it still packs the same sense of excitement that you'd expect from a Zimmer score.

On Stranger Tides could have been a smarter, darker counterpoint to the previous films if the mood weren't killed by too much slapstick and cartoon antics. Or it could have been a fun, lighthearted adventure romp if not bogged down with a slow pace and too much dialogue. Either way you're likely to get you money's worth, but good luck fighting the feeling that you could have had much more.

Score:

Advice on Film Criticism (an ongoing series)

I decided to start this segment both to answer a common question I get and to discuss some of the mistakes that many aspiring (and occasionally professional) critics make. I'll keep this segment going with 5 or so points at a time to keep it at a manageable size.


1. You must love film.

It's an obvious statement but one that's often overlooked. If being a film critic simply meant watching the movies you like (or love to hate) and then giving an opinion, anyone would do it. But to review movies successfully, you have to go far beyond that. You need to a have a true passion for the medium that drives you to learn and understand far more than the average person. This means knowing the traditions that inspire your favorite and least favorite trends, watching countless movies you'll inevitably hate just to gain a bit of perspective on the ones you'll like. But above all, you have to understand what it takes to make a film, and just as importantly, what it takes to ruin one. And this takes dedication that goes well beyond the point when the average viewer would lose interest.

2. Your opinion can be wrong, but not for the reasons you think

As a critic it's not your job to praise the 'right" movies and skewer the "wrong" ones. It's also not your job to convert others to your taste or to uphold a mainstream or contrarian viewpoint. You're not right or wrong for preferring Ed Wood to Stanley Kubrick or vice versa, but you're wrong if you can't justify either stance. Your opinion can be wrong if it's based on incorrect information or fallacious logic or if your scores seem inconsistent or arbitrary to the majority of your readers. Your job, in the simplest terms, is to evaluate a film in a way that's honest and reliable. The former is self-explanatory; the latter, on the other hand, requires practice and understanding and I'll have more to say on that in point three. If you do this right then you can absolutely trash a film while still informing some viewers why they might enjoy it. And that's what will keep people returning to read your reviews even after they rage and fume about how you got any given movie all wrong.

3. Criticize consistently

The quality of any review is half content and half context. While any individual review can win you some fans and gain you credibility, it's the complete body of your work that will give your opinions and observations meaning. Every review you write should be consistent with a larger scheme so that readers can infer what they know about your tastes and apply them to your reviews. However, it's usually the content of criticism that determines critic's merit, and while everyone reviews a little differently, a few core rules are almost always applicable:
- Know the relevant criteria for any movie and give weight accordingly. A review of an action movie should not touch on the same points in the same proportions as a review of a serious drama or a screwball comedy. If you're reviewing 300 there's only so much that readers want to know about the script, but they'll want an in-depth analysis of the action. The converse goes for, say, The Social Network.
- Explain what your scores mean (unless you're convinced it's completely obvious) and be sure that the score never contradicts the content of the review. The reader should be able to guess the score intuitively just by reading your comments on the movie.
- Keep your personal pet peeves personal and don't give them more weight than they deserve. The reason Armond White, for example, is such an unpopular critic despite his extensive knowledge of film  is not simply because he's a contrarian but also because his criteria for good or bad films are so specifically geared to his personal tastes.
- Check to see if your scoring differs among genres and time periods. If they do, make sure those scores reflect your opinion on that genre at that time.


4. Criticize constructively

As almost any critic will tell you, writing an especially brutal review can be fun and provides great catharsis after feeling cheated by a bad film. Unfortunately this tactic has become so common that negativity and grumpiness have become shorthand for criticism so don't take it as a requirement. Note that even Doug Walker (The Nostalgia Critic) who specifically reviews notoriously bad movies knows not to go overboard with his rants and occasionally concedes when a movie exceeds his expectations. That said, don't be too so positive that you get caught up in your own hyperbolic prose or else fans and detractors alike will see you as biased. Your language should be exactly as positive or negative as your estimation of the film. Here are a few tips on how best to avoid that.
- Don't use any word that roughly means good or bad interchangeably. Each one means something slightly different.
- Don't stoop to ad-hominem attacks against actors and filmmakers. A film review is not your place to spread rumors or criticize their appearances or personal lives. There's a place and a context for that, but in a film review it's not only irrelevant but a clear sign of bias.
- Don't be afraid to voice offensive opinions, but never go out of your way to offend, especially not to get a reaction.
- You fans' comments are likely to offer some insight on this. Don't take each one as an imperative, but look at the ones that are made about you most consistently.

5. Don't star-gaze

Since this is a personal pet peeve, I'll follow my own advice and keep this relatively short. Basically, just know that a film review is not a place for Hollywood gossip. While the occasional comment is acceptable, don't spend any significant amount of space on actors' appearances, insider anecdotes, or personal ramblings about any experiences you might have had with the cast and crew. Again, there's a time and place for all of those things, but in a film review they'll only make you look biased and unprofessional.

Priest

Just looking at the trailer for Priest, it's obvious that so many things can go wrong very easily. You have a setting that looks like an Orwellian Blade Runner meets V for Vendetta knockoff ruled by the militant Christianity, specifically the brach of Christianity that believes in cramming every Christian cliche into one dogma. The plot seems pulled straight out of a silver age comic book: neo-priests in the future expertly trained for combat do battle with deadly vampires. Basically think a reverse Daybreakers with a hint of Judge Dredd thrown in. In other words, it's obvious what kind of movie Priest is striving to be: a sleek fusion of high-concept sci-fi and over-the-top action. So the most important question then is whether it delivers on either end.

The answer is a frustrating maybe. The movie begins with some shoddy motion comic style animation set to bland narration about the vampire uprising and the priests who kept it in check. Then we see our two main characters, cowboy archetype and lapsed priest archetype, set out on a mission to rescue a loved one from the vampires. This earns the disdain of the church, which calls out a hunt on lapsed priest archetype for disobeying them. As a general rule, audiences won't sympathize with a character for losing faith if it happens in the first ten minutes and they never see him having it in the first place. On the other hand, it's probably best that a movie like Priest shakes such details aside to get the plot moving.

What ensues is the two protagonists' journey into lawless, vampire-infested wild west themed wastelands. In other words, it's an excuse to have our heroes talk tough and kick ass, and they do both often enough to at least keep things from getting boring. The fight scenes themselves are satisfying. They're fast-paced, full of style and cool visuals, but never so elaborately fancy that they look like video game cutscenes. To its credit, the movie uses darkness well to build a satisfying atmosphere, reminding me of a poor man's Pitch Black. The constant comparisons Priest draws to better movies are probably the best evidence of how much it gets half-right.

The action escalates when another priest tracks down our heroes but soon comes to see things their way. Seriously, for battle-hardened warriors sworn to duty and dogma, these people have the most fickle convictions. But again, at least this movie makes it easy to sweep plot aside. Entering act 3 their mission becomes to square off against the vampire menace that's gathering numbers in preparation for a big attack.

The acting is consistently serviceable, with everyone doing justice to their basic parts. There are a few scenes of genuine drama, but in general, the parts between action scenes are mostly filler. The movie's biggest saving grace in this respect is that action scenes come often enough.

If you're in the market for something not too different form a poor man's Equilibrium, this is the movie for you. It's unapologetically cheesy and derivative but has a strong imagination and manages to get the basics right.

Score: