Critical Film Condition

Gerard Butler and Katherine Heigl in one movie? Spartans in Promdresses? Rock’n’Rollas getting knocked up? Oh no, my friends of flimsy entertainment, it’s another RomCom.

Abby Richter (Katherine Heigl) is your typical stuck-up, romantically challenged morning show producer who is reluctantly embroiled in a series of outrageous tests by her chauvinistic correspondent Mike Alexander (Gerard Butler). He is part Neanderthal, part Caveman. To prove his theories on relationships, he helps her find love. I wonder how this is going to end?

Yes, It’s he ugly truth. The trailer looks cute, I have to admit. Let’s hope Gerard flashes those abs.

Link: http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/theuglytruth/

Popularity: 4%

THERE ARE NO MIXED MESSAGES. This is the sentence that changed Miranda Hobbes’ life drastically in season 6 of “Sex and the City” (Episode 4: Pick-A-Little, Talk-A-Little). Jack Berger, Carrie’s boyfriend tells her:  When a man wants to call you, he will call you, if he doesn’t, well, then he doesn’t. It’s that simple. Miranda was impressed, because this made so much sense. Unfortunately she was unable to spread the gospel to the women of the world.

This is probably why the authors Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo decided it might be a good idea to turn this epiphany into a best-selling book called “He’s just not that into you”. It is basically a list of various scenarios where women make fools of themselves to impress men that are moronic and think with their dicks. Just like in real life!

So it was only a matter of time until the inevitable happened: “He’s just not that into you – the movie”. It sports an impressive cast including Ginnifer Goodwin, Kevin Connolly, Scarlett Johansson, Bradley Cooper, Justin Long, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Connelly and Drew Barrymore (who was also executive producer).

I have a feeling that the actual underlying themes that lead to such crude behavior are not really dealt with in this work of fiction. And that isn’t necessary. Although I like the “and that is the beginning of our problem” theory. It’s cute.

The trailer is so made for me to relate, it is scary. After all, being rejected feels so much better in Manolos. I makes me just want to see what they are wearing. Let’s hope this is “Love actually” meets “Sex and the City”. We’ll see.

Link: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/hesjustnotthatintoyou/

Guddy’s take:

Some directors are just plain lucky. Ken Kwapis has got Jennifers Connely and Aniston, Drew Barrymore, Justin Long, Scarlett Johansson, Ben Affleck, Gary Cooper… All in the same romantic comedy. Sure, the plot is thin (about how guys dump girls after the first day, yadayadayada…) but the cast could support this and it could become the sweet, “take-a-chick-to-see-it-and-you’ll-get-lucky” comedy this year. I know I wanna watch it.

Of course, don’t expect a revolution in filmmaking to come from this picture, but sometimes, a comedy which is not directed by Woody Allen and didn’t cost a shitload of money (except for the cast) comes along and makes us happy.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Johansson goes skynny-dipping in this movie. Ticket: BOUGHT!

Popularity: 4%

One of the few films that I felt needed a standing ovation after the screening… I think this sentence summarizes what I thought of this little gem of a movie.

How do you explain that the most active director in Hollywood is a 78 year-old man who finds the time to act in one of his two feature presentations last year? Renny is writing his review on “Changeling” at this exact moment, so it is up to me to explain to you why “Gran Torino” was such an exceptional experience.

I think just about anyone who stepped into a movie theatre knows who Clint Eastwood is. You either saw “Dirty Harry” or “Unforgiven” and you know who I’m talking about. And “Gran Torino” somehow reminds me of both. As Renny well described, this is what Dirty Harry would look like in retirement. And it’s good for many reasons.

Since I want to leave the best for last, let me say that the only problem that “Gran Torino” COULD HAVE is its tight shooting schedule. It is a simple, low-budget movie, and it happened to have been shot and cut in three months, which is crazy!!Keep in mind that the director is a 78 year old man who directed another feature film last year as well and know that from the first shooting day  to the final cut it can take over a year and you’ll understand. Somehow, practice makes perfect, and little to no flaws can be found, technically, in “Gran Torino”. It’s not that the movie is perfect in any way… It’s just that, when trying to find any big cutting, acting, continuity, or photography mistakes, you notice that with many years of experience, these things just don’t exist. Aside from the acting, the screenplay and the amazing photography by Tom Stern, this movie doesn’t stand out, but it is just flawless.

“Gran Torino” stars Clint (I’m just gonna call him by his first name because I think it’s cool) as Walt Kowalski, a Korean War veteran who just lost his wife and lives alone in a neighborhood in Michigan. Kowalski is a hard-ass, but ends up saving the life of two Vietnamese teens who were being attacked by a gang, just to “get these people out oh his lawn”. As expected, he starts to develop a relationship with his Asian neighbors and to tell more would just ruin the experience. The story of an old man not seeking, but getting his last chance for redemption has been told a million times (by Eastwood himself, I might add), but Kowalski is just such a complex and brilliantly developed character that this movie stands out for this reason alone. The role was made for Clint, who manages to even give it a few more layers below the predominantly grumpy face that we learn to love. Some actors, such as Harrison Ford, reach their sixties and try to prove that they still got it by doing crazy stunds and yadayadayada… Clint IS an old man, ACTS like an old man and through acting and acting alone proves that he is definitely not a guy you wanna fuck with. Every grunt, every SINGLE one of his many many one-liners is delivered with perfect timing and the audience went ape-shit over it every five minutes. Seriously, in a year that actors got praised for playing outstanding characters like clown-criminals, actors of other ethnic groups, or overweight, foulmouthed producers, Clint shows us that this old, common man, is the most complicated character to play because all that you have to work with is a regular grandpa that you as an actor have to make interesting (I still think that the best performance last year was Heath Ledger’s, but that wasn’t an acting experience, it was a complete transformation). The supporting cast is great, with many inexperienced actors that look proudly safe in their roles thanks to the experienced director.

The screenplay is just out of this world. While the story-arc is as good as the story allows it to be, in great respect of the USA vets but with a shallow development structure (it’s about a guy who is old and has guns, mainly), every single line of dialogue, every character interaction, is timed right. The most irrelevant moments are delivered right… And as an audience it is just joyous to see it turned into motion-picture. The first sequence is mainly a collage of expressions and little dialogue by Clint, and somehow me and the entire audience were hooked from this moment on.

The funny thing about “Gran Torino” is that while I’ve been trying, in the last paragraphs, to explain to you why it is so good, it is really something that has to be seen to be understood. While a technically solid experience all-around, this movie is one of those rare cases in contemporary Hollywood where the technical aspects get dropped to the background so that the actors can interact with a great screenplay and, my guess, have a great time in the set… Three months of shooting, a shit-load of improvisation, and all these great feelings just break the screen and hit you right in the face. At 78, it is unfair to say that Clint Eastwood has still got it… At 78, Clint is IN HIS PRIME!

[starreviewmulti id=1]

Popularity: 82%

“Changeling” is an American mystery-thriller of the year 2008 – I find it important to share this obvious information, because as soon as the movie kicks-off, you get the feeling that you went back in time. Directed by Clint Eastwood (“Million Dollar Baby”), the movie centers it’s plot on a personal experience related to the “Wineville Chicken Murders” and is written by Michael Straczynski (of “Babylon 5” fame).

A police-state called L.A. – How could something like ignorance be seen as the new face of tolerance? The people weren’t to blame, but the state itself. The many critical points in “Changeling” concerning the L.A. of the 20s-30s are delivered with great felling and touch to the public’s eyes. The state loses any kind of credibility and it doesn’t happen once, but every so often. And the scary think is that Clint Eastwood delivers all this with just an amazing amount of authenticity that you really think you’re watching 1928 come alive and live through the experience. Naturally, the great Tom Stern (Director of Photography) that brings these forgotten times to life with the use of as little light as possible. In my opinion one of the greatest cinematographers in the world.

Always when you think you figured out all his tricks, Eastwood, the old fox :-), manages to surprise his audience once again. A history-movie, you think: the colors are grayed out, Angelina Jolie wears a bell-formed hat from the silent-movie era and moves through Los Angeles in the good-old tram. “A True Story” as the tagline bravely suggests, not “based on” or “inspired by”. “A True Story” that is perceived after 120 minutes into the screening.

With this plot-suggestion tells “Changeling” the story of the incredible trials that a woman called Christine Collins, whose son disappears one day in the year 1928. The corrupt missing-children division of the LAPD finds a boy in the street and suggests that the claims of the mother that this is not her son are a result of psychological disturbance of an irresponsible mother.

But not only a historic movie, “Changeling” is a modern depiction of the story of motherly passion, sensibly displaying the sense of guilt of a professionally responsible and even life-hungry, child-less woman.

Christine Collins, a tour-de-force role for Angelina Jolie, leaves her nine year-old son at home for a job-emergency. When coming back from work, she gets hung up by her boss, who compliments her and offers her a promotion – not now, she says, but thank you – and just misses the tram home. Upon arriving at her house, the dark, life-less rooms are a clear sign of the realization of her worst fears.

The sensation is similar to the one in a monster-movie? A movie like “The Omen” with a monster in the form of children, a changeling like fair- tales and fables. The false-son offered by the police opens his wide-mouth and is unaltered by his new mother’s hate. “Goodnight, Mommy”, he says, in the most extreme display of cuteness and wickedness at the same time. But it is not the end of the plot-development for the movie, for it quickly changes into the typical woman-in-prison film, when Christine gets sent to the psychiatric ward for getting in the way of the LAPD, who refuses to search for the right child, claiming that they have already done that, even with irrefutable evidence.

When Angelina Jolie gets thrown into the closed psychiatric ward, she must live through the terrible experiences, from electro-shock therapy to cavity searching, executed by a mean blonde supervisor. And then, all of a sudden, right after she gets released from the ward, Eastwood transforms the experience into a serial-killer film of the best variety: there are hints to missing children who were brought to a ranch in the desert, among whom Christine’s son might be. When the gutsy detective first gets to the ranch, the camera smartly moves around to reveal bits and pieces of information, like an axe on a log, that get their due importance through the smart contrast of blending sunlight and shadows… A door screeches when it opens and you think that you’re in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”.

The mother, always in a rush, and like a breeze, Eastwood changes his style and plot-development techniques, all in a beautiful, natural way. And you can say from the experience that it was all true, where the case of the missing Collins boy was but a sub-plot in one of the most tragic stories that shook the population of Los Angeles – the case of the serial-killer Gordon Northcott.

How does this develop further on? A courtroom drama, in which justice strikes back with furious anger? The portrayal of the child murderer, played brilliantly by Jason Butler Harner, who’s acting in this movie takes good greetings from Peter Lorre?! And in the end a statement about the death-penalty? But yes, everything is there. For those who follow classic storytelling, whose motives get locked into perfect packages, you are going to get irritated here. Because in this story, a story which Eastwood follows in every direction, there might be a necessity for closure, whereas in reality there is still doubt. A doubt that Eastwood refuses to give answers to… And therein lies one of the main difficulties in this movie.

But it is so, that from many different directions, in a sort of experimental pincer movement, you get the steady development of many insights into the story. And these insights carry a great deal of hate in then, and it is clear that the director Eastwood shares this hate. It concerns the unthinkable, when for instance it is overseen that the uncontrollable bureaucracy of security sets its own reality upon us, the people. It is then that the logic says that a nine year-old boy can shrink three inches in five months, where cops and doctors talk for so long, that they rid themselves of a responsibility that should never be gotten rid of. And the lack of rights of a woman, who can be locked away and mistreated with the flick of a cop’s pen – is it the reminder of the feeling that people who get locked away in Guantanamo Bay must get? At its core, it is about the terror that the state sets when the risk of a police-state establishing itself exists. And still: America wouldn’t be America through Eastwood’s eye if the people didn’t manifest after a short period of time so that people like Catherine Collins can get their due rights. In the courtrooms of the US, he claims through the narrative, there is still much work to be done.

I could go on and on, but I think that this is a movie that has to be seen, if not only for the fact that only you can set this movie in a specific category for yourself. Last, but not least, what needs to be said about “Changeling” is that it changes the common understanding of HOPE.

Keep on movie-ing :-)

Popularity: 2%

I remember seeing the first poster for “Mutant Chronicles” a long long time ago, and since it looked like yet another Romero-like flick, it didn’t impress me (mutant zombie shit is Renny’s thing).

But this new trailer really impressed me. Scary mutants with a dark view of the future mixed with good actors and a dramatic score? Are they out of their fucking minds? YES, and that makes great movie-making.

Anyhoo: in the year I-don’t-know-but-it’s-a-long-ways-ahead, the earth is infested with really spooky mutants, so a guy played by John Malkovic evacuates the earth. Ron Pearlman is another guy who thinks that there is hope for mankind on earth, so he sends a small squad of people, lead by a guy played by Thomas Jane, to find a solution. And kill a shit-load of mutants while they’re at it).

It doesn’t SEEM like much, but the trailer is worth a look because, even for me as a guy (last time I use this word in this post) who isn’t a fan of the genre, it was really impressive. It’s the lightest Red-Band trailer I’ve seen recently, so any guy (doh!) and gal can check it out:

http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/783116/mutant-chronicles/videos/mutantchronicles_redband_trailer_012209.html

Popularity: 1%

Sometimes I luvs me some good trailer ;-)

Ok, ok it´s not long and no one can tell the story really, but this classic manga adaption from Sanpei Shirato (which was one of the first manga published in U.S) looks just perfect.

Why can´t every trailer from Asia be like that? °^^ Yoichi Sai please don´t ruin it. Seriously, it really looks like it could be a new cult movie with the star from “Death Note” & “Detroit Metal City”

Film opens September 19th in Japan. Yatta! :-D

Link to trailer: http://www.kamuigaiden.jp/

Keep on movie-ing!

Popularity: 5%

As the poster asks: ARE YOU READY FOR THE UPGRADE? It will promise you an ultimate RUN on the rooftops ;-)

Get ready for round 2 -  fast paced roller-coaster-running-action. And man it really looks amazing. I do “parcour” by myself and I can tell u people, this franchise is by far the best. Fast cut trailer, fast camera moves and “man” fast running.

Ad some point, the normal viewer will find it a little bit confusing, but don´t expect some “The Third Man” or something. It is just a funny action buddy movie.

I hope the best for the new director Patrick Alessandrin. And it seems that this time, there are more gangs and guns, so good luck and don´t get caught outhere ;-)

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_s0sq53j3M

Keep on RUNNING! °^

PS: for those who didn´t catch the first movie, here is the trailer for the amazing part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndEXkwAr01Q

Popularity: 4%

“Valkyrie” has been met with great skepticism since its pre-production, and for good reason. Possibly one of the most interesting stories of the Second World War not involving the Americans, the choice of Bryan Singer as a director and Tom Cruise as the protagonist Claus von Stauffenberg seemed like the typical way for a Hollywood studio to ruin it all for a quick way to get box-office cash. I, however, am always confident in the works of Bryan Singer.

For those who just landed in our planet, "Valkyrie” tells the story of the most important plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler during the war. What many idiots don’t believe is that there were people in the high ranks of the Third Reich that didn’t share Hitler’s beliefs, but hesitated to act due to the terror imposed by the Führer. Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg and a group of politicians and military people decided to act, but failed in 1944, shortly before the Allies came (I’m not spoiling anything, this is just history 101). Bryan Singer’s “Valkyrie” tells the development of the operation, and its tragic epilogue.

Now, as good as “Valkyrie” may be, I couldn’t shake the feeling that something was missing throughout the movie. And the odd thing is, I’m still having a hard time figuring out what it was, specifically. The movie has its flaws, and some things are above average (as you would expect from Singer), while most of them are just “there”. But somehow, half-way through, I figured that the biggest problem in “Valkyrie” is that Bryan Singer, the same guy who gave you one of the biggest plot-twists in history with “The Usual Suspects”, defied millions of fans with “X-Men”, chooses to play it safe. The script holds almost no surprises, and while some characters do get some development, others (Stauffenberg included) just waltz through the story unaffected. How and why Stauffenberg became the leader of Operation Valkyrie isn’t clearly explained, nor given a good enough reason. The screenplay LINEAR to the point of oftentimes becoming a bore. I mean, Syd Field (most famous screenwriting guru of our time) probably watched this movie and went ape-shit because the screenwriters followed his every rule… This is screenwriting 101, people, and if you want to follow every word, you get a screenplay, but if you choose to develop upon it, you get a masterpiece. This movie has a screenplay, alright, but I just didn’t buy it.

The bashing will end soon, cross my heart. But not yet: One of the biggest complaints of the movie community was the casting of an actor with little to no dramatic luggage like Tom Cruise for the complex role of Claus von Stauffenberg. Singer’s first excuse was symbolized by a profile picture of Cruise next to an old one of Stauffenberg himself, and amazingly, they looked incredibly alike. Now, as for his role in the movie, I would spare my words and say that it is just like the screenplay. Singer is a great actors-director, but when you have to direct someone playing a main-character who has no development whatsoever, I’m just at a loss as to who is to blame for Stauffenberg being so flat. At times, Cruise stands out, but most of the time you feel that he is safely inside his quiet Colonel, following orders. Another important role that doesn’t get any depth is, well, Hitler.  While I think that Hitler should be viewed more as a symbol than a character in movies (I’ll explain that some day), I can’t shake the feeling that Bruno Ganz (of “Downfall”) was the ultimate Hitler and that he shouldn’t be played by anyone else. It is understandable to choose an unknown actor who hasn’t been marked by a character yet, but in doing so, David Bamber, who ends up transpiring his insecurity in every scene he’s in, ended up being cast. It is really astonishing how unimpressive Hitler is in this movie. I think that good screenwriter would have to try hard to remove all the layers of such a complex, charismatic historical figure and make it uninteresting to the point where you don’t care.

The rest of the supporting cast, however, has its shiny stars among many big names. I mean, the movie has such great actors that I was surprised a few times because I forgot that, for instance, Terrence Stamp was in it. Others include Kenneth Branagh, Tom Wilkinson, Thomas Kretschmann, Eddie Izzard and Bill Nighy. Nighy deserves special mention, since he manages to add depth to his character while being confronted by the same linearity of the screenplay as everybody else. His General Olbricht ends up becoming a complex character in some way, torn between serving his country or its leader, and while having to deal with the same script as the other actors, Nighy manages to pull it off anyway. Kudos for an actor who made his name as a slap-stick comic.

But to save the best for last, the production design, as a whole, for “Valkyrie” deserves special mention. The Third Reich has been portrayed on celluloid many a times, but under Singer’s meticulous supervision, you really feel like the Berlin of 1944 comes to life. It is AMAZING on how much attention was paid to detail, from the inscription on the Panzer Tanks, the official Reich Documents or the Government Quarter, or anything else. The beautiful cinematography helps to amplify the effect of the megalomaniac proportions of the ambitious Reich, and in all its terror, it looks beautiful.

I had a hard time figuring out why “Valkyrie” didn’t impress me, but it just didn’t. I really wished that Kenneth Branagh had a bit more screen-time, but he doesn’t, the script should be A LOT more complex, the actors should be better developed, etc. With such a brilliant artistic design, without a good-enough screenplay to support it the movie just falls flat, which is a shame… The production design shows us what the movie could have been, but unfortunately, we’re left with something just on average. I would recommend “Valkyrie” to just about anyone interested in the story or great WWII films, just don’t expect anything out of the ordinary, even with Singer at the helm.

PS: Kristie watched the movie with me and sent me a clip where Hugh Laurie (“House M.D.) and Stephen Fry (“V for Vendetta”) make fun of movies of the Reich… Definitely worth watching: A Bit of Fry and Laurie – Major Eric Donaldson

Popularity: 1%