Every Day

(2010 d. Richard Levine)

6 out of 10

The trailer played before The King's Speech. Family crises. Disfunction. Infidelity. But halfway through the preview it started to take a slightly different turn. Maybe this wasn't just another cynical view of middle America. And the cast was impressive - Leiv Schreiber, Helen Hunt, Brian Dennehy, Carla Gugino.

Unfortuantely it wasn't quite the original, different film that I was hoping for. There are a lot of movie cliches that if done well can provoke new, refreshing observations or emotions. As if the familiarity of the situation let's viewers focus more on character and the subtleties of the acting. But if done poorly, it's just cliche. This movie falls somewhere in the middle.

Schreiber and Hunt are having marriage challenges. He's overworked at his job writing for a sleazy cable tv drama (Levine wrote for Nip/Tuck), as well as advances from his sexy co-worker (and of course, they'll have to work together...). She's stressed by the illness of her depressive father, who because of her daughterly "guilt" has brought him home to live with them. Their eldest son also just came out that surprise - he's gay and wants to start pushing the boundaries of parental discipline.

I really like the acting in this movie. It's small, understated, and realistic. They all seem like a real family, and the everyday occurences (breakfast, school, etc.) are authentic. I was empathetic to their struggles, and hopeful that they would pull themselves together and make this family work. I also liked that the director really seemed to have a point - there was a reason he wanted this movie to exist. And he genuinely loved his characters.

But the tone of the movie fluctuates a little too much. From serious drama at home, to comedy at the office - from complete naturalness to somewhat overwritten snappy dialogue and comebacks. And there aren't any surprises in the plot. We always know where we are and exactly where we're going.

As a first feature it's an accomplishment. Somewhat modest, but with a great cast and a competent technical team. I just wish we could have a movie family drama without repeating the same Independent film cliches.

Every Day

DVD update #1

In order to maintain my pretentious sophistication, this blog will only contain reviews of films that I have seen in a large-format, theatrical presentation. However, as an aid to record keeping and for the one or two souls interested, I'll try to maintain a list of movies seen on dvd/tv/etc. If in the rare instance where my more detailed opinion on any particular title is desired, let me know and I will consider it.


Soul Kitchen (2009) 6 out of 10
Red Cliff (uncut International version) (2008) 7.5 out of 10 epic!
Mondo Cane (1965) 1 out of 10
La Notte (1965) 6.5 out of 10 Monica Vitti!
And Soon the Darkness (2009) 6 out of 10

Applause

(2009 d. Martin Zandvliet)

7.5 out of 10

The story may be nothing new (alcoholic actress deals with repercussions of her addiction), but it's the central performance that elevates this movie. This is a one-woman show, a performance showcase for Paprika Steen. Steen is a celebrated Danish actress (check out Open Hearts and Vikaren) and here she's allowed the full expression of her talents.

Cross cutting with her character's stage performance of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, things take on interesting dimensions. It's a famous actress (Steen) playing a famous actress (Thea) playing a character (Martha) who's playing a character (the reformed alcoholic). After getting out of rehab and returning to the stage, her quest becomes regaining custody of her two sons. The tagline is "sometimes life is the hardest performance of all" and that pretty well sums up the movie.

It's fascinating to watch this film as an actor. First of all in just wondering how Steen achieved such a depth to her character. She just felt completely real, without any tricks, and was able to communicate so much inner struggle while outwardly attempting to hide these emotions from those around her. I strongly felt (more than in most films) the bleakness and desperation of her dilemmas and setbacks.

And while it's not like the blurring that happens in Cukor's A Double Life, questions are raised. Does Thea's own alcoholism help her play Martha? Or does living in Martha's world inflame her real-life problems? Are the highs and truths of the acting art really enough to sustain a person for all the hours they aren't in performance? Do some creative people live in a state of higher energy that "normal" people can't possibly sustain? And do people only play characters in life, or is there a true, authentic self existing somewhere that can interact with the world?

Applause

The Way Back

(2010 d. Peter Weir)

7 out of 10

It's no secret that Peter Weir has made some great films. While I don't think this one reaches the levels of previous masterworks, it's still a worthy addition to his canon. The movie is the mostly true story of 3 men who walked 4000 miles on foot. After escaping from a prison camp. Through the frozen wasteland of Sibera. Through the scorching desert of Mongolia. Through Tibet and over the Himalayas into India. The book on which the movie is based is titled, appropriately enough, The Long Walk. After watching this I really have no excuse for not walking the 3 miles to work.

I must confess that it took me a good 20 minutes to accept some of these actors playing these characters. There just seemed something phony and Hollywood about recognizable names affecting Polish and Russian accents. Jim Sturgess as a strong, hardy, motivated political prisoner? But once settled in, I was completely absorbed into these people and their struggles. The acting ends up being one of the strong points here. Ed Harris just radiates weariness and sorrow, Colin Farrell is fantastic as a Russian criminal, and the lesser-known Burcur and Potocean are really really great. And a briefer-than-I-would've-liked appearance by my new favorite actress Saoirse Ronan that proves this girl just might be the next Meryl Streep. The only real acting weakness was Sturgess. I give the guy credit for tackling a difficult role and trying something outside of his typecasting (and he does do a decent job) but when up against these seasoned veterans, his limitations are magnified. I just never fully felt Jim embodied the reality and depth of this character's pain and determination.

The scenery in this film (partially financed by National Geographic) is great. I especially loved how well the movie conveyed the tactile physical sensations. The freezing cold. The starvation. The scorching desert sun. The thirst. And when they find an oasis - ahh, the water!

Also impressive was the lack of emotional manipulation (soaring music, rousing dialogue, etc.) The most affecting (and effective) scenes in the movie were simple, quiet, without music.

The main weaknesses are in the pacing and the editing. Maybe there's a 4 hour director's cut somewhere that resovled these problems? First the pacing. The film spends what feels like a good hour in Siberia - prison life, planning, escaping, surviving. Then we spend the next hour in the desert - surviving, moments of strong emotion, thirst. But then it seems like the producers realized the movie was too long and just wrapped up everything as fast as possible. Getting to Tibet takes minutes, getting over the Himalays mere seconds, and then we're done. While most story issues were resolved by Tibet, cinematically speaking watching a (by reputation a somewhat difficult) journey through majestic snowcapped mountains sounded exciting! I don't like feeling that budget or runtime or shooting schedule robbed me of experiencing the entire journey. I wanted to see all of it. Which was the same problem with the editing. Frequently the scene transitions would skip so much time that they were jarring and sometimes confusing, as if there was footage missing. And it would skip really fascinating stuff. For example, we see them ready to go, the night of the guglag escape and then, bam! cut to: 15km away, free. I wanted to see the actual escape! See also the aforementioned teleporting over the mountains.

But this was still an enjoyable and moving experience. And yes, inspiring. Strong acting, awesome locales, and some fascinating imagery. Including a truly beautiful scene involving the positioning of hands with such quietness and sorrow that I don't think I'll ever forget it. Mr. Weir, please don't wait another 7 years before you direct another film!

The Way Back

On The Bowery

(1956 d. Lionel Rogosin)

7.5 out of 10

My film knowledge increased today. I confess I had never heard of Rogosin or this movie.
It's ostensibly a documentary covering 3 days in the life of some residents of New York's skid row.
And in three main areas it's a fascinating experience.

First, it's a completely mesmerizing study in human physiognomy (Rogosin's idea was to emulate Rembrandt's self-portraits - closer to poetry and sculpture than traditional film). The beautfiul and rich black-and-white photography of the tired and weather faces of these derelict men is fantastic. I'm sure anyone with a deeper interest in the history of New York would find the milieu extra fascinating.

Second, it's a study of the mind of an alcoholic. There was a making-of doc after the film and hearing that almost all of the people involved in the film died of problems relating to alcohol lends much more weight to the struggles and seriousness of these people. The attempts at staying sober, the "friends" who clear out as soon as the bottle's empty, the lengths some will go just to get enough for 1 more drink. Observant without being judgemental.

And finally, (and most interestingly) it's worthy fodder in the discussion of fiction vs. reality in film. The characters in the story are not actors. The histories they recount are factual circumstances. The locations and other people in the scene are completely authentic. But the "plot" of the movie is a re-creation, a basic script was followed and the improvised dialogue had to be coaxed out of the "actors." Does this make it any less powerful, emotional, and moving? Not at all. But can it still rightfully claim to be a documentary? Is any documentary every truly objective? What is the camera not revealing? Does a director's strong stance on a social issue influence him to shoot and edit the film to produce a certain effect? Could a completely fictional film contain as much "truth" as a supposed documentary?

Thanks to Milestone films for releasing this great restoration. I'm always looking to discover films previously unknown to me, and it's a rare treat to find that the international critical praise was truly warranted.

On The Bowery

No Strings Attached

(2011 d. Ivan Reitman)

5 out of 10

I did not want to like this movie even that much.

When I first saw the trailer I was really disappointed in Natalie Portman. Then to find out she produced it? I was ready to hate, hate , hate.

It's no secret that I've always been a fan of Ms. Portman. I probably should do something with this huge box of magazine articles about her. But lately, I wasn't being blown away by her acting. Even in Hotel Chevalier she didn't seem quite comfortable. But then came Black Swan.

And this movie. Now, the plot is contrived, the jokes do get pretty crude, Kutcher is bland, Lake Bell was amusing but the more I remember it the more annoying her performance becomes. Then there's Natalie. Maybe her coldness is some residual character stuff from Black Swan, but Portman's strongest roles have never been warm, soft, and fuzzy. But tome, she has never looked better than in this movie. Or been this charming. Kudos to her for tackling something different. She acquites herself admirably with most of the comedic moments. And even where she didn't quite triumph I was amused by her attempt. I found myself actually enjoying her company. And strangely feeling like I knew her from somewhere in real life -friend? someone at work? until I realized that I was just falling in movie-love with her all over again.

Welcome back. I've missed you.

*On a side note - can't we get some movies that acknowledge up front the values of fidelity, trust, respect, and depth in a relationship? We usually sort of end up realizing the emptiness of promiscuity but only after wallowing in libertinism for 80 minutes. Are there really no romantic conflicts that could occur if the characters actually had higher standards? When Kevin Kline's character says the cliched "you can't help who you fall in love with" can't someone just step up and say "but you can help who you have sex with!" I understand that sex in movies is usually a signifier/shortcut for "love" but does it have to be that way? Can't we maybe get a little more sophisticated?

The good: Natalie
The bad: mediocre plot, trying to out-Apatow Apatow, Kutcher, the further devalution of sex

No Strings Attached