"From Dusk Till Dawn" - "Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them."

*I write these articles with SPOILERS.

Once again trying to stick with my monthly routine of late of Van Damme, western, and comedy, I tried to find the closest thing to a horror western in my collection and came up with From Dusk Till Dawn. I would say western is the loosest fitting genre label for this wacky film, but the argument could be made that it’s a kind of neo-western or whatever cool-sounding thing we’re calling modern westerns these days. It’s mostly a campy vampire movie. And it definitely seems like the most fun Tarantino and Rodriguez ever had making a movie. Watching it again for the first time in years, I felt a little bummed out about where both the filmmakers are today compared to their early, more renegade days. It’s not that they’re not making good films (I loved Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood, and Alita: Battle Angel looks interesting and expensive [I haven’t seen it yet]) today, but they are certainly not making movies like this anymore. That’s probably a good thing, but I still enjoy this time in their careers quite a bit, even if the documentary accompanying this film sullied it all a bit for me.

I’m Glad They Don’t Put This Many Special Features on DVD/Blu-ray Anymore.

Due to a combination of boredom and morbid curiosity at the ridiculous amount of special features included on the DVD release of From Dusk Till Dawn that I own, I decided to watch every minute of it. All told I spent over six hours with this movie and its features. I watched the movie, then watched it with commentary from Tarantino and Rodriguez (who claimed it was for the “laserdisc” release), then I watched all the behind the scenes/deleted scenes/etc. Stuff, and I finished it off by watching Full Tilt Boogie, the feature length documentary made about the making of the film. 

The standard behind the scenes stuff is pretty good, but that’s always the case with a Rodriguez film. The dude is willing to include everything on his DVD releases, even getting to the point where he was including a cooking class video with every release for a while. Better yet, he knows how to provide good commentary. He gives actual details about the making of special effects and how he films things rather than just making bland comments or, worse yet, explaining the movie to you. Since From Dusk Till Dawn features so much practical creature and gore effects, it was great to see how it all came together, especially since a lot of it includes footage of Greg Nicotero (who has become a major part of The Walking Dead), Howard Berger, and Tom Savini, gods of zombie movie effects. As far as special edition DVDs go, this is a treasure trove of interesting features. If only I had stopped there. 

As a standalone documentary, Full Tilt Boogie is great at showing the lives and work of all the “little guys” in a film production. There are interviews with drivers, production assistants, grips, etc. You typically never see these people even in behind the scenes stuff, so the film does give an insight into that world of filmmaking. It also includes the requisite scenes of the stars goofing off and cutting loose (my favorite moment is of everyone hanging out in a bar in Barstow: you get to see an awkward encounter between a local and Clooney, Juliette Lewis singing karaoke, and Tarantino kind of dancing along like the dork he is). But the documentary also tackles a union issue that occurred during production. 

Before I go any further, I have to point out that I am a member of a union and wholeheartedly support unions in general. Because of this, I came away with a lesser opinion of Tarantino and Rodriguez after watching this film. I won’t pretend to know exactly what was going on with SAG-AFTRA in Hollywood at this time, but based on what was presented in the movie, the union was not happy that Rodriguez and Tarantino were using a non-union crew on such a large production. The documentary filmmakers obviously side with the production, and they eventually storm a union convention in an attempt to get the lead negotiator on camera (they eventually talk to him off-camera, but they still include him snarkily in the credits as a character in the film).

The basic argument from the documentary and from Tarantino and Rodriguez is that they want to do things their way, and the union would keep that from happening. The argument is made that they just do too much, and the union doesn’t like that. The example being that Rodriguez operates the camera, edits, and directs, and the union would want to change that. But I think the issue is more about the smaller people on the set and making sure they are protected. Later in the film, we see that a number of people with lesser roles were given terrible or no food, forced to work 17-18 hours, and were even left behind on the set when the bus took off without them. If that’s not an example of why a union is necessary, I don’t know what is. But they still include an interview with an assistant director who claims unions may have been necessary for his father, who was a “little man,” but now unions only want to tell him what he can’t do, and how is that right?

This brings me to my own experience with a union. In a factory setting, unions are often criticized for allowing lazy workers to stay employed and to keep work from happening. The examples of this are when someone is not allowed to do someone else’s job. This is the case for me. I could be at a machine at work that is down and have very little to do; if I was asked to do a job I was not qualified to do or if I took it upon myself to do someone else’s work, it would be grounds for a grievance. But if I was just sitting around, why is it wrong to work? Because someone else is getting paid to do the other work. If I start doing their work along with mine, what’s to keep the company from deciding that one position should do the work of two, even if the opportunity to do both jobs only happens in rare occurrences? 

It’s about job protection, even if that means someone is sitting around doing nothing. It’s not about protecting someone’s right to sit on their ass; it’s about making an entire job is not done away with because of the circumstances of a single day. So yeah, dude from the documentary, the union will tell you what you can’t do so that the person who’s getting paid to do it keeps their job. 

The problem Tarantino and Rodriguez had at the time was that they were transitioning from independent filmmakers into studio filmmakers. Sure, when you’re working on a tight budget with a skeleton crew, a union will make the production impossible to continue. But Dawn had a budget of $15 million in the early ‘90s. That’s hardly an independent production by the standards of the time. 

Tarantino and Rodriguez argue in the documentary that they simply like doing things their way with their people, and the union was using their high profile at the time to make a stand. They argue that the union doesn’t actually care about anyone working on Dusk, they just want to go after the filmmakers. That may be true, but if they are going to make studio films, then they need to use union crews. They can still hire who they want, and they can still handle as many responsibilities as they want to handle, but some workers’ roles will be reduced to create a job for someone one else. I don’t see a problem with that, but I get that some people would argue that when you’re dealing with art, you can’t take an industrial, union mentality to it. 

But in a lot of ways, Tarantino and Rodriguez are CEOs, and they need to be held in check like any other job providers. They are making substantially more money than the workers on the film, and if left to do whatever they want, some workers may be forced to work in unfair conditions for too many hours, not to mention many jobs that could have been created are instead done by a single person. As much as Tarantino and Rodriguez want you to think that they’re just two dudes trying to make movies like they used to in their backyards, the fact of the matter is they are making millions of dollars and are in control of even more money in the budget. Sure, they may still have an independent spirit, but the budgets of their films are far beyond independent. Part of having a lot more money to work with means having to make sacrifices to make your bigger films. 

I can see both sides of this argument, and I clearly side with the union because of my own experience and beliefs about unions in this country. But I cannot abide the presentation of Tarantino and Rodriguez as victims of a strong-arm union. They just wanted to keep doing things exactly how they had been doing them, but just like how a business ran in a garage must adapt when it becomes a full-blown corporation, these filmmakers needed to adapt as well.

All the union stuff left a sour taste in my mouth after everything, but I do appreciate that this film and its special features could bring about this response in me. Despite all this, I do still find this film entertaining.

Grindhouse Before Grindhouse.

Tarantino and Rodriguez are obviously fans of B-movies, George Romero, and John Carpenter movies, which is why they made Grindhouse a few years after From Dusk Till Dawn, but this film is the beginning of it. John Carpenter’s influence is the most evident since the film becomes a bit like Assault on Precinct 13 in the second half, and one of the characters even wears a “Precinct 13” t-shirt. 

The gore effects are reminiscent of The Thing as they are mostly practical and very disgusting. There is even a deleted scene in which one vampire’s stomach opens and bites off the head of someone, much like the chest cavity that bites off arms in The Thing. 

Overall, the film simply has a Carpenter feel to it, though both filmmakers would eventually lean even more heavily into Carpenter territory in future films. I think Planet Terror is even more of an homage to Carpenter, and The Hateful Eight is a borderline remake of The Thing when you break it down to the essential plot of not knowing who is really who they say they are (not to mention it stars Kurt Russell).

Once again, it’s just a fun movie because these guys are making their version of the films they love. I prefer Tarantino’s latest films (I think I like ‘90s Rodriguez more, that current Rodriguez, though), but I will always have a soft spot for this moment in his career. A moment when he could make a vampire movie and just have fun and not have every single frame and plot point analyzed.

Why Do I Own This?

I own everything Tarantino has been a part of, so that’s the main reason for this. But I do really enjoy the one-two punch of Desperado and From Dusk Till Dawn. Rodriguez was just firing on all cylinders at this time.

Random Thoughts

Why the fuck is the documentary "Disc One" and the actual movie is "Disc Two"?

Holy shit, John Hawkes! It's been so long since I've seen this that this is the first time I realized he is the clerk at the beginning.

The IMDb trivia is vast, but the most interesting thing I came across is that Joe Pilato was going to play Seth. Man, I want to see that version of this movie.

In fact, in many ways this movie is connected to Day of the Dead: the almost casting of Pilato, Tom Savini is in it, and Howard Berger (Bub, the zombie) has a cameo, as well.

My God, what a great picture they created for John Hawkes on the newscast.

I don't think Tarantino is doing much "acting" when he's staring creepily at Juliette Lewis's feet.

I think every viewer wanted to knock Tarantino out when Clooney did in the RV.

Cheech's pussy soliloquy is one for the ages.

The bloodbath is pretty damn great: it's gory and goofy.

That corpse guitar is gross...and no way that thing is functional.

I always appreciate a vampire movie that treats them as monsters and not tragic heroes.

Some of George Clooney's line delivery comes off a bit flat (for instance, any of the Tarantino-isms like "Okay, ramblers, let's get ramblin'"), but he is perfect for lines like: "Peachy, Kate. The world's my oyster, except for the fact that I just rammed a wooden stake in my brother's heart because he turned into a vampire, even though I don't believe in vampires. Aside from that unfortunate business, everything's hunky-dory."

Any monster movie that acknowledges movie versions of the monsters is good in my book. The conversation Clooney has about accepting that they are dealing with vampires followed by everyone mentioning what they know about vampires from movies is great. It's always annoying when characters don't know what famous monsters are. Like on The Walking Dead, it seems as if zombies didn't exist in pop culture in that world. Why? Why would it be bad for the characters to say, "Holy shit! Zombies! Head shots only, people! And if you get bit you're as good as dead!"? 

I love that half of Fred Williamson's Vietnam speech is muted as Savini turns. The physical comedy of him slashing around is great, and it upends the audience expectation of a Quint-like Jaws speech. Easily the funniest moment in the film for me.

“Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them. I don’t give a fuck how crazy they are!”

..

"Gravity" Might Make You Puke...in a Good Way.

Directed by Alfonso Cuarón, written by Cuarón and Jonás Cuarón, starring Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, and Ed Harris - Rated PG-13

 

This might not look like much of anything, but this is a Darth Vader.  That's him hurtling through space after the Death Star blew up.  Thought it was fitting...



Writer-director Alfonso Cuarón caught my attention with Children of Men, my favorite film of 2006. That criminally under-watched film was science fiction at its best: realistic, suspenseful, and meaningful. Also, I was beyond impressed with Cuarón’s complicated long takes. These takes, which go on for minutes with intricate stunt work happening throughout, are not just gimmicks; they immerse you in the film. You almost have to hold your breath as you watch a film like that, which makes Cuarón the perfect director for a film like Gravity.

Gravity, one of the most effective films I’ve seen in recent memory, is a great vehicle for Cuarón because it’s basically a survival story set in outer space. And the best way to present a survival story is to make the audience feel like they are part of it.

Without giving away too many details (not that the previews haven’t set the film up anyway), Gravity is about newbie astronaut Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and her disastrous first mission working on the Hubble Telescope. The film is a series of (nearly literally) breathtaking and often beautiful events as Ryan tries to survive.

The experience of the film overshadows any story, but that doesn’t mean it’s an ineffective or trivial plot.  The film is about more than just survival.  As with most serious sci-fi films, there are undertones and themes at work.  The most dominant theme of Gravity involves rebirth after a tragedy.  There is also religious imagery scattered throughout, so the film leaves you with something to think about after you watch it, which is much more important than simply looking and sounding pretty.

Themes about survival, religion, and moving on are great, but it is important to actually care about the characters, too.  Gravity, through minimal background information and great performances, makes you care about the two main characters even though we only know them as they go through an extreme situation.  Even though most of the film is about getting problem after problem solved, I still found myself connected with Sandra Bullock’s character.  She is identifiable to the audience because she is new to space.  She is not all that calm and collected at the beginning, much like most of us would be if on our first trip.  More than that, Bullock is a likable presence.  She’s never annoying, and her reactions to the disaster around her felt real.  This is not the loud performance that won her an Oscar for The Blind Side.  It is simply her best performance.

George Clooney is the only other character that we get to see (or hear) for more than a few seconds.  While he’s not breaking new ground, there’s no one better to play the cool, collected astronaut who treats the dire circumstances with a matter-of-fact certainty.  He’s basically just being George Clooney in space, and there’s nothing wrong with that.  It was also great to hear Ed Harris as the voice of NASA command.  It brought back memories of Apollo 13, and Ed Harris just sounds like someone who should be working the radio at NASA.

Now on to what is getting Gravity all of its praise: the experience.  First off, this is one amazing film, visually speaking.  Cuarón has said that roughly ninety percent of the film is computer-generated, which is remarkable.  I’m not saying you’ll ever think this was actually shot in outer space; you might forget that every now and then, though.  At no point did I feel like I was watching some overly animated action film.  When things explode or break apart, it is incredibly detailed.  The fact that hardly anything goes “BOOM” adds to the beauty of it.  Since the film takes place in outer space, which has no oxygen through which sound can travel, the film has to rely on great visuals, slight vibration noise, and a musical score.  It all comes together to create perfectly tense moments.

Gravity is more about making you feel like you’re there than it is about making you say, “Wow.”  I watched it in IMAX 3D, and I feel confident saying that is the optimal way to see this.  The 3D actually matters in this film, as a sense of distance and depth is integral to the struggle.  (And just when I had given up on 3D…curse you, Cuarón!)  But the large screen, dizzying camera movements, lack of gravity, and the 3D can be a recipe for an upset stomach.  I heard someone a few rows away fight off vomiting for a few minutes, and I felt my stomach do a flip or two during some scenes.  Normally, that would be a red flag (and I’m sure it still is for many people), but that reaction is not accidental.  When that person near me started to retch, it was during a moment in which Sandra Bullock’s character was fighting the same urge.  If that’s not placing you in the film, I don’t know what is.  There are certainly more pleasant ways to involve the audience, but it’s still effective.  (For the record, the person was fine, and it sounded like dry heaves more than anything.)  None of this is to say that the film cannot be enjoyed in regular theaters.  Any sci-fi fan should check this out however they can.  It’s just that the IMAX experience is pretty extreme.  A truly tense film will be tense no matter the screen size or 3D.

Any film that attempts to put you through a harrowing experience and accomplishes that gets my highest marks.  I always feel stupid when I praise a film this highly, though.  The cruel internet film culture demands that anything that is critically or publicly acclaimed (or both, as is the case with Gravity) must be nitpicked to the point that a person must be ignorant to flat out love a movie.  I still have a love of film, despite the toxic online environment surrounding the culture.  A lot of the vitriol is from fans of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Apparently, you can’t love a film set in space unless you also make it clear that it sucks compared to 2001.  I like Kubrick’s film, and I still find it to be a beautiful and impressive experience.  Is Gravity better?  I don’t know.  It’s different, that’s for sure.  They are not attempting to do the same thing, so I find the comparison moot.  As for the technical side of the films, both are impressive, and I imagine both will influence film for years to come.  2001 influenced so many filmmakers that I find it hard to imagine Gravity will have the same effect, but who cares?  I just need to stay away from the IMDb boards…

Regardless of all that, the impressive work of Cuarón is hard to deny.  It’s unfortunate that he chose a project so time consuming, but it was worth the wait.  I just hope he makes something a little simpler next time so I’ll have a new film to watch in less than five years.  All of his work has paid off, though.  If it wasn’t clear by now, Cuarón has definitely solidified his role as a premiere director, and he should be mentioned quite often during the upcoming awards season.

Cuarón deserves so much praise because he has made a film that is harrowing, breathtaking (breath-holding, I should say), sickening, and entertaining.  Gravity will put you through an experience, and you’ll be glad you went through it.

"The Descendants"

The Descendants - Directed by Alexander Payne, written by Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash, based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings, starring George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller, Nick Krause, and Robert Forster - Rated R

An excellent drama that doesn't try to force tears from you.  And it has Clooney at his best.

The Descendants has all of the elements to potentially be one of those miserable tear-jerking dramas begging for an Oscar: a dysfunctional family, a cuckolded husband, a wife in a coma, etc. But the film rises above mere Oscar bait because it paints a realistic portrait of a troubled family. Sure, there are plenty of scenes in which characters sob, but the majority of the film is about how a family, the father in particular, deals with tragedy and, thankfully, they don’t deal with it through quiet desperation.

Writer-director Alexander Payne (Sideways, About Schmidt) is no stranger to films about main characters in miserable situations. He is also no stranger to making those films surprisingly watchable and even funny at times. Payne continues to impress with The Descendants and, as with previous films, strong performances elevate the already great material.

George Clooney stars as Matt King, a Hawaiian lawyer/land baron whose wife has recently fallen into a coma after a boating accident. Matt has plenty to deal with. On top of his wife being in a coma, he is in the middle of completing a deal to sell his family’s land holdings (which date back to the mid 1800s), he has no idea how to deal with his two daughters, and it turns out his wife had been cheating on him in a marriage that was running on fumes. That would normally be the set up for a quiet, depressing film. Perhaps it’s the tropical setting, Clooney’s performance, or simply the writing (or all of these things, of course), but The Descendants is a surprisingly light-hearted film. Sure, there are bouts of sobbing as expected but this is not a movie in which everyone sobs hysterically. Nothing against tearjerkers, but a film is much more interesting (and entertaining) if grief is only a small portion of the plot.

The Descendants has enough subplots going on that the wife in a coma doesn’t take center stage. Instead, the film is part comedic detective story as Matt searches the islands for his wife’s lover. A portion of the film is about fatherhood as Matt tries to deal with daughters Scottie (foul mouthed and acting out) and Alex (rebellious with a partying streak). There’s the part about the land of Hawaii, as well, which adds a much different element to a typical drama.

The plot is interesting and varied enough to keep things moving at a fine pace, but the acting makes this film memorable. Clooney is in absolute top form and at this point (after great turns in The American, Michael Clayton, Fantastic Mr. Fox, and Up in the Air) is easily one of the best actors working today. This role could easily have been one of those “staring” roles that Clooney has perfected in films like Solaris and Michael Clayton, in which he conveys a multitude of emotions in a glance or eye twitch. That element is there, but this is a role that requires Clooney to be open about his feelings. He shows true range in The Descendants as he deals with his daughters very frankly. It is very refreshing to see a troubled Clooney actually tell someone he is troubled. More importantly, though, you believe him.

Clooney’s performance has a bit of help. Shailene Woodley is the standout as older daughter Alex. She has to share the most scenes with Clooney and she handles herself quite well. Amara Miller is convincing as Scottie in a role that could’ve easily become annoying and/or cutesy. Instead, it’s realistic and touching. Nick Krause gets to provide most of the comedic relief as Alex’s stoner boyfriend Sid, but he also gets to share some important scenes with Clooney and their unlikely pairing provides some of the film’s best moments. And Robert Forster provides some surprisingly emotional scenes as Clooney’s father-in-law.

The Descendants isn’t Oscar bait, but that doesn’t mean you won’t hear about this film in the next few months as awards season kicks in. It is a great film and if you get the chance, you should definitely check it out. The Descendants is a complex film in that it is a complete portrait of a man and his family rather than a singly focused snapshot. Put the story in the interesting setting of Hawaii (shown in a realistic rather than fantastical light) with some great performances and you have a film that is worthy of being mentioned come Oscar time, even if it isn’t demanding it.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

How great was it when Robert Forster punched Sid?  Oddly enough, my only complaint was that this film needed a few more punches.  It would have been great to see Clooney punch Sid once or twice and Matthew Lilliard has a face ripe for punching.

 

Speaking of Lilliard, not sure if it was his acting or just his character but I detested that character much more than I sympathized with him.  Judy Greer was great in her one emotional scene as his wife, though. 

 

Beau Bridges definitely looks and acts like a dude who grew up in Hawaii.  (This coming from an expert on Hawaiian culture as I type this in southern Indiana.)

 

I thought Alex's underwater crying scene was the most emotional part of the film (with Forster's goodbye to his daughter a close second).  Those scenes also show what is great about this movie since subtle comedy surrounds both.  With Alex, her question about why Clooney felt the need to tell her about her mom while she was in the pool added a bit of humor as it showed just how clueless Clooney was when it comes to dealing with stuff like this.  As for the Forster scene, we see this as Clooney, Alex, and Sid peek through the hospital door like children.  A couple of fine examples of how you can be dramatic but a bit on the light side as well.

"The American"

The American - Directed by Anton Corbijn, written by Rowan Joffe, starring George Clooney, Johan Leysen, and Violente Placido - Rated R

Ahh...Finally some good suspense in a film this year.

I am a complete sucker for tension and suspense in films. I find a film at its most powerful when a character that is realistic, deep, and even a little likable gets put in multiple situations in which you wonder if he is going to live or die. The American is like that from start to finish. I was completely engrossed from the very first scene and the film never let up.

The American is about a hit man, Jack (George Clooney), lying low in a small town in Italy. He takes on a job there and is told that he doesn’t "even have to pull the trigger.” That pretty much sums up the movie as far as action is concerned. Those expecting a flat out action movie will be severely disappointed. This film is actually a character study…about a hit man. So there is a little bit of action, but it’s really all about Jack.

Jack is dead inside. He’s at the tail end of a career in death and it is obvious. Well, it’s obvious because of Clooney’s performance. This is a role that requires an actor who can talk to the audience without ever speaking. I’ve always found Clooney to be excellent at conveying complex emotions simply by staring, and he’s in top form here. One look at Clooney and you know this is a defeated, yet hopeful man. This is helped by his character’s fascination with butterflies (he even has one tattooed between his shoulder blades). You get the idea that Jack may be a caterpillar waiting for something to happen so he can flourish into a real life.

The only way to become a butterfly is through a woman, though. This is a problem since a hit man’s lifestyle isn’t very conducive for long term relationships. It doesn’t help that his handler thinks that women represent weakness and a loss of “edge,” but for Jack, they represent life. So yeah, this is kind of a love story. But it’s a love story in which you never know who anyone truly is.

By that I mean that this is a film that will have you looking at every single character (including Jack) with complete suspicion. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a film that has created paranoia so effectively. This is nothing new in the “hit man” genre, but it is handled so expertly. Director Anton Corbijn (Control) does an amazing job of putting the viewer into Jack’s shoes. You get the feeling an aged hit man most likely has: that anyone could be a potential assassin. I, like Jack, didn’t trust anyone. It’s an anxious feeling to have while watching a film, but it’s also really great.

A good location can help set up suspense as well, and a small town in Italy is perfect for this film. The American takes place in one of those nondescript old towns of Italy in which the sidewalks and roads are basically a labyrinth…which is also an ideal place to put a hit out. Imagine this: the camera follows directly behind Clooney as he walks down an empty sidewalk at night, the soundtrack nonexistent so all that you hear are footsteps, but are his footsteps the only ones you hear? That just wouldn’t work as well on a common American street. On top of that, at one point Clooney is watching Once Upon a Time in the West in a bar along these streets. How fitting is it that his character is watching one of the most suspenseful (Italian-made) westerns of all time in this film? All I can say is that the connection was not lost on me.

Corbijn also used Italy to its fullest extent as a visual backdrop. There are plenty of beautiful shots in this film and the film in general is shot very well. The few action scenes are handled very tastefully. That is to say, The American isn’t about violence and bloodshed, but when it is required the film treats it realistically and effectively.

Another impressive aspect of this film is the crawling pace of it. I know that many people will call it boring and maybe even pointless in its pace, but I think that is what makes this film so great and suspenseful. The American is about a man who is thinking deeply about his life throughout. A film like this must move slowly, though deliberately. So that means you will see very long establishing shots and you will see many scenes that simply show Clooney working on a gun or just staring into space. That kind of thing isn’t for everyone, but if you have the patience for a film like this, it can be very rewarding.

I mentioned that the film moved deliberately, but it is also very deliberate in what it shows. This film can be confusing in that it doesn’t tell the audience everything, but everything that it does show the audience has a purpose and there are no loose ends. But it is a still a very mysterious film that requires you to fill in the blanks yourself at times. I appreciate a film that has that kind of confidence in its audience.

When you boil it all down, all I’m saying is that The American is a film for adults. It has action, but it is not an action movie. It is visually appealing, but not with computer effects. It has an interesting main character, but he does not talk very much. It moves at just the right pace, but some will find it boring and slow. I think viewers of an older age will enjoy this much more than the younger crowd. But it really ends up being about your film age. Do you like to think while you watch a movie? Do you like to feel real, meticulous tension? Do you want to see a realistic character whose eyes tell more of a story than his mouth? If not, avoid this film. If so, check this out now.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I thought the picnic scene was awesome. It was handled well enough that it crossed my mind that Jack might actually be a prostitute murderer. He read that headline earlier and he had such a strange look on his face at the river that it had me wondering, "Where is this movie going?" I mean that in a good way. I know it's dumb to think the movie might have gone that way, but you have to admit, it would be quite the original move if it had worked out that way.

I find it completely odd that this slow, tense film was released wide at all, much less on a Wednesday. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that this was released in my area, but this is not a typical studio film at all. it honestly feels like a foreign film...which makes sense I guess since Clooney is damn near the only American thing about this movie.

The gun suppressor sequence was actually quite cool. I enjoyed seeing the process of something like that being made. In fact, the way the movie shows the planning and meticulous detail to something as quick and violent as an assassination was quite refreshing. Usually in a movie if someone needs a gun they make a call and they have a highly illegal weapon in minutes.

Violente Placido is absolutely beautiful.

It was a bit cold how Clooney distracted his lady at the beginning of the film before he killed her, but it was effective. A great example of how cold blooded he has to be because of his job. He could have no loose ends.

I didn't mention any of the scenes with the priest in the review, but I very much enjoyed all of the discussions, thinly veiled as they were. I know that a hit man with a conscience isn't new, but that doesn't mean it can't be handled well. Point is, I found it decently compelling.

"Up in the Air" / Mini-Reviews - "(500) Days of Summer" / "Che" / "Gallipoli" / "It Might Get Loud" / "Humpday"

Up in the Air - Directed (and co-written) by Jason Reitman, starring George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, and Anna Kendrick - Rated R


A Chigurh for this funny, thoughtful film.



Up in the Air, the latest from Jason Reitman (Thank You for Smoking), is a funny, thought-provoking, borderline existential film that has much more to say than most comedies. But then again it isn't necessarily a comedy. I suppose the correct term these days is "dramedy." But I don't particularly like that word. Let's just call it a film, and a very good one at that.

The film is about Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a man who spends nearly his entire life flying from city to city. Bingham's job is to fire people for other companies because they are afraid of the reaction they might get from the axed employee. This may sound like the set up for a very depressing film, but it is really much more light-hearted (for the most part) than you would think. For starters, Bingham loves the traveling that comes with his job. He has no "real" life so to speak, though, in his words, he is "surrounded" by people to connect with. There is nothing long term in his life and he likes it that way.

A wrench is thrown into the works when Bingham's company decides to take the advice of a rising star at the company, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick). Natalie thinks the company can save a ton of money if they start firing people in an even more impersonal way, through video conferences. Bingham isn't a fan of the idea since it would force him to settle down, but he convinces his boss to take Natalie on the road for one last trip to show her the ropes and how important it is to fire someone in person.

This set up allows George Clooney to break down the rules of quick and easy travel and this is when Up in the Air is at its best. Clooney plays the know-it-all to perfection and Anna Kendrick plays off of him well. Their banter makes for some of the funniest scenes in the film. But make no mistake, this is Clooney's film. In fact, your opinion of Clooney will make or break this film for you. I'm a Clooney fan, and this is one of his better performances. I got the feeling that he was playing himself (both he and his character are not exactly tied down), but I think that's the mark of a good performance. When you can believe that the actor is exactly like the character, then he's done something right and will most likely receive a nomination for the role.

Clooney is not alone, however. Vera Farmiga does a nice job as Clooney's love interest. The rest of the notable cast basically consist of cameos. Zach Galifianakis and J. K. Simmons have short but sweet roles as recently fired workers. Sam Elliott's appearance made for a good scene near the end. It was good to see Danny McBride show up in a semi-serious role since he's usually cast as a ridiculous, over the top character. There are more, but these appearances stuck out to me and, in the case of Galifianakis and Simmons, made the firing scenes easier to sit through.

The firing scenes are not necessarily meant to be funny, though (and certainly a couple are meant to be completely depressing). What makes some of these firings depressing and authentic is that the filmmakers got recently fired regular people and told them they were making a documentary about layoffs. They were told to treat the camera like the person who fired them and recreate their experience or say what they wish they had said. It adds a reality to the film that can get to you at times. Listening to these real people and hearing Clooney's responses get to the heart of this movie.

That brings me to the message of the film. Up in the Air asks the audience what is truly important in your life. Is it your job? Is it living life with no strings attached? Is it settling down and having a family or someone to be with? These are the kinds of questions that any adult can relate to and that is what makes this movie almost existential. Danny McBride's character asks late in the film, "What is the point?" Clooney isn't sure at first, but who is? Who hasn't asked him/herself this question at least once in their life after a bad day or an argument with a loved one? Up in the Air can't give a definitive answer to that question because it can only be answered by the individual. The film can, however, make you think about what the point is, and you might laugh a bit while you consider the answers; and maybe that's the point.


Mini-Reviews
This is something new I'm going to start doing. I tend to watch plenty of DVDs through the week and I never write anything about them and many of them do not warrant a full review either because they are old movies, or because I just didn't feel like writing a full review. I'll try to keep them as short as possible, giving a concise synopsis followed by a sentence or two of opinion.

(500) Days of Summer - Directed by Marc Webb, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel - Rated R
This movie is about a relationship from beginning to end. It's been compared to Annie Hall and I think that is a fair comparison. I really enjoyed this one. It felt like a new breed of romantic comedy, one that both a man and a woman could enjoy. Let's hope this is the beginning of a new trend.


Che (Parts 1 and 2) - Directed by Steven Soderbergh, starring Benicio Del Toro - Rated R
I'm not exactly a fan of Che Guevara. When I see kids wearing t-shirts with his face on them I want to approach them and verbally berate them. But then I calm down, because I realize it would infuriate Che even more than me to see the American youth wearing his image, expecially if that image is on a $30 shirt. Anyway, I watched this lengthy biopic (the two parts equal about 4 and 1/2 hours) because Soderbergh makes interesting films. This film has its moments, but they are few and far between. The filmmakers didn't take a strong stance one way or the other with Che and I think that hurt the film. I just didn't have much of a response to this film one way or the other. I will say, though, that Benicio Del Toro is absolutely perfect for the role. I've heard complaints about his accent, but as far as the look goes, he was born to play Che. But even his performance does not warrant a viewing of this film.


Gallipoli - Directed and co-written by Peter Weir, starring Mel Gibson - Rated PG
I don't know why but it took me forever to get around to watching this historical film about the Australian soldiers fighting in Turkey during World War I. It is a very solid and devastating film and I suggest checking it out if, like me, you have left it off your list.


It Might Get Loud - Directed by Davis Guggenheim, starring Jimmy Page, Jack White, and The Edge - Rated PG
Let's face it, if you're into rock music you'll probably want to check this out for Jimmy Page alone. If you're not into rock, you should skip it because this movie consists of these three guys sitting around talking about guitars and playing a bit here and there. I enjoyed it, though I thought it could've been a bit better. I guess I expected them to play together a bit more or something. But it is still very cool to see these three together, even though The Edge is kind of a whacker.


Humpday - Written and directed by Lynn Shelton, starring Mark Duplass and Joshua Leonard - Rated R
This is definitely one off the beaten path. It's about two lifelong friends who feel they haven't accomplished anything substantial in their lives. So they decide to make a gay porno film of themselves, even though they are both straight. I thought this film was quite funny and it understands male friendship in the way that a Kevin Smith movie does. So don't be scared off by the porno aspect of the film, because the film isn't all about that. It's more about getting older and trying to do something with your life. And it's definitely about how awkward such a situation could be.