Duncan's Reel Deal

"The Artist"

2012-02-02T03:39:00.001-08:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Today the norm in Hollywood is for stories to be told with a thick veneer of the latest computer generated graphics, images, and sound effects; an elaborate set and wardrobe; and a smattering of quick shots of actors dodging bullets and diving away from enormous explosions. Well-told, insightful stories aren’t always successful at the box office, but big budget, action extravaganzas usually are. “The Artist” tries to subvert that norm. And its success in doing so is part of what makes the movie so interesting and refreshing.

“The Artist” is a (mostly) silent film about silent films. Of course, “The Artist” is also about an artist—a silent film actor, to be precise. His name is George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), and he is the pinnacle of what Hollywood used to be. He dodges his on-screen enemies, woos the ladies, and helps the less fortunate. He injects excitement, drama, sorrow, and humor into his films, all with a distinctive bravado that makes him a fan favorite. Oh yeah, and he does it all without saying a word.

Valentin is a star, but he’s also an alright guy. Sure, he’s a bit conceited and egotistical. But he’s also loyal and caring. He really enjoys boosting his audiences’ spirits when he can, and, like many of the characters he plays, Valentin is also willing to help out those in need.

A case in point is Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). Miller, who is in fact peppier than peppy, starts out as a nobody. She’s just an average moviegoer who dreams of being a star. She wants to sing, dance, act, perform, or whatever, just so long as it’s on the big screen. But of course wanting an acting gig and getting an acting gig are two very different things.

It is just lucky for Miller that she manages to catch Valentin’s eye. At first Valentin is caught off guard by Miller. He finds her mesmerizing, but he doesn’t know how to react to her subtle yet intoxicating charm. So what Valentin does is help Miller out. He teaches her how to stand out in a crowd of other actresses, he keeps up with her work, and he defends her to his producers.

And it works. Before long, Peppy Miller is one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. Her movies get rave reviews, sometimes before they are even released. Valentin’s role in Miller’s success cannot be denied; however, another part of her success has to do with her enthusiastic willingness to act in hip, newfangled non-silent movies called “talkies”. People love the silent Peppy Miller, but they love the talking, laughing, singing Peppy Miller even more.

Valentin, on the other hand, is stuck in the past. He refuses to act in talkies. The result is that the guy everyone loves quickly becomes the guy no one cares about. Valentin must adapt or be axed. And Miller has to find a way to remain true to Valentin and her roots while also remaining on the cutting edge of cinema.

“The Artist” has a wonderfully nostalgic feel. Most of us weren’t alive when silent films were still being made, and yet, there is still something familiar about this movie and its subject matter. It evokes a rich historical current that we somehow know about—a current that courses through the movies we watched two decades ago, two years ago, or even just two days ago.

This feel is not just a yen for older, simpler times. What “The Artist” brings out is an intricate interplay between past and present artistic media. This interplay involves values, styles, sensibilities, and tastes that are vastly different, and yet, profoundly bound up together. This thing that “The Artist” does allows us to appreciate the genesis of film while also making us aware of the kinds of choices that make film what it is today.

“The Artist” is also a reminder that there is more to a good movie than computer graphics, blinding action sequences, and forceful one-liners. There is more to good acting than delivering a line, there is more to writing a good screenplay than putting in twists after twist, there is more to good editing than moving the action along as quickly as possible, and there is more to good movies than box office receipts. A movie can be really good without the latest special effects, or indeed, without any special effects. Or, as “The Artist” shows, a movie can be really good without any witty dialogue, or indeed, without any dialogue at all.

"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol"

2012-01-05T06:09:00.000-08:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Tom Cruise’s mission is to delay the demise of the “Mission Impossible” series. To succeed, he must take on the identity of agent Ethan Hunt of the Impossible Mission Force (IMF) and thereby draw people into, and eventually onto the edge of, theater seats across the globe. If his mission fails, critics, film studios, and moviegoers will disavow the once-celebrated actor—they will act as if (or continue to act as if) he doesn’t exist. If he succeeds, on the other hand, agent Ethan Hunt and the “Mission Impossible” series may live to see another release.

Cruise, who continues to accept this mission without batting an eyelash, may have pulled it off again. Somehow, even though the latest movie—“Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”—is fairly uninventive compared to the rest of the series, it has managed to secured the approval of countless critics and audiences.

In this movie, Hunt is directed to stop insane terrorist Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist) from securing Russia’s nuclear launch codes. This top-secret mission is as dangerous as any that he has ever been on. And, as always, Hunt knows that if something goes wrong with the job, the IMF and the U. S. government will disavow him. That is, if the mission is botched, bungled, sabotaged or otherwise fails, there is no backup plan—the U. S. will just pretend that he does not exist or else will accuse him of going rogue.

Luckily, Hunt has at his disposal a team of highly trained agents, including tech genius, Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), and misleadingly dangerous bombshell, Jane Carter (Paula Patton). The team quickly puts together an ingenious plan to break into the Kremlin and get their hands on information that is vital to stopping Hendricks. Even though they are doing the impossible—slipping past countless armed guards and hacking into impenetrable computer systems, for example—it looks like business as usual for the IMF.

But then the whole thing falls apart. Despite the team’s training, skill, and nifty gadgets, Hendricks swoops in to nab the crucial data, elude Hunt and his team, and then set off a massive bomb inside the Kremlin. The mission is a disaster.

And what’s even worse is that the bombing gets pinned on the IMF. This triggers ‘Ghost Protocol’: the dissolution and disavowal of Hunt, his team, and indeed, the entire IMF. Hunt and his team are left with scant resources, very few friends, and hardly any hope. So the team, together with the help of analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), decides that their only option is to catch and expose Hendricks and thereby vindicate the IMF.

However, Hendricks proves to be a worthy adversary. He is rich, clever, and highly motivated by a desire to wipe out the human race via nuclear holocaust. In contrast, Hunt and his team are hampered by their lack of resources, as well as infighting and emotional scars from past missions. This time, whether the former IMF agents can stop an unprecedented disaster depends not so much on their technology or even their cleverness, but rather on their gritty determination.

A lot of people really liked “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”. I was not one of them. This movie is entertaining, and certain of its action sequences are definitely fun to watch. However, I have a hard time seeing what this movie adds to the “Mission Impossible” series. The plot is old and tired, the stunts are familiar, and most of the gadgets that Hunt and his team use are only slight modifications on gadgets that were used in previous “Mission Impossible” movies. Even the enemy (a Russian terrorist) is an antiquated homage to spy villains of previous decades.

That is not to say that “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” is not amusing or entertaining. A movie can be entertaining without being innovative. Just don’t expect anything new.

"Melancholia"

2011-12-01T04:01:00.000-08:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

At the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, Lars von Trier claimed that he is the best film director in the world. As is the case with many of his comments, and indeed, with many of his films, it is not always clear when von Trier wants us to take him seriously. However, “Melancholia” is worth taking seriously. It is dark, depressing, and pessimistic, but really good.

Most of the first half of “Melancholia” is set amid a beautiful wedding reception at a high-end country club. This is where people are meant to be happy—especially Justine (Kirsten Dunst), who is a beautiful young bride with a loving husband, lots of money, and her whole life ahead of her. But on this, the ‘happiest’ day of her life, Justine is not glowing.

In fact, she can barely eke out a smile. Justine’s gloom is not caused by a subpar reception (it’s actually magnificent) or misbehaving guests (though some do misbehave). Nor is it that her husband (Alexander Skarsgard) is a disappointment. Justine’s melancholy is objectless, aimless—without cause or merit. She is simply depressed.

This makes Justine’s sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), anxious. Along with her husband (Kiefer Sutherland), Claire is responsible for making sure that Justine’s wedding reception goes well. However, as Justine frowns, withdraws, and even disappears for long stretches of time, Claire gets wrapped up in her sister’s depression, and this triggers her own deep-seated fears, anxieties, and panic.

Although Justine and Claire’s mental sludge is not directed at any particular object, they certainly do have reason to be afraid. For, while all of the decadence and apparent celebration is going on, a planet called ‘Melancholia’ is hurtling toward earth. This planet had been hiding behind the sun, but now it is rearing its ugly head, and threatening to destroy all earthly life. As Justine, Claire, and their family members come to terms with the possibility of annihilation, they think about the significance of their lives and reflect on the state of nature.

“Melancholia” is about depression, anxiety, human nature, and the relationship between humans and nature. Like most of von Trier’s work, it is deeply and thoroughly pessimistic. Some movies are about the cruelty of nature. Other movies are about the frailty of the human psyche. Still others are about the viciousness of human nature. Von Trier is perhaps unique in that he ties all of these dark elements together; he produces a worldview whereby there is no hope, no goodness, no redemption. It seems that, for von Trier, this is not a gruesome manipulation of the facts, nor is it a horrible fantasy; rather, it’s just the way things are.

Von Trier, who has been open about the fact that he himself suffers from (sometimes crippling) depression, does a remarkable job filling the theater with his moods. The weight of Justine’s depression is palpable—almost suffocating. And von Trier makes sure to cast this shadow over the audience in a variety of ways. Sometimes his work is subtle, and sometimes it’s shocking, but it is nearly always tangible and interesting.

Some have rightly criticized von Trier and his movies. He likes to stir the pot, both in public and on-screen, and sometimes this comes across as overly abstruse, obscene, and even a bit foolish. At his worst, von Trier is a jester—a producer of nonsense. But at his best, he is a genius.

Maybe Lars von Trier is right—maybe he is the best film director in the world. I think otherwise. But I also think that von Trier’s brilliance is very rare. His use of cinematography and other effects is masterful; there are few other living filmmakers who even come close on this score. And, although von Trier continues to be interested in only certain themes, he handles them with nearly unparalleled deftness. “Melancholia” may not be enjoyable at every turn, but it’s a really good movie and an impressive artistic achievement.

"The Ides of March"

2011-11-02T15:51:00.001-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

On the ides of March, in 44 B. C. E., Julius Caesar was literally stabbed in the back by his political rivals. This story should sound familiar. That is, whether you know your history, have read any Shakespeare, or just hear about Congress every now and then, this story should sound familiar. So maybe it is surprising that “The Ides of March”, George Clooney’s new political thriller, is exciting, fresh, intriguing, and yes, even original. This movie plays on a lot of familiar themes, but it does this with a certain style—a 21st-century twist, if you will—that makes it feel contemporary and relevant.

“The Ides of March” is about the race for public office. Governor Mike Morris of Pennsylvania (George Clooney) is the ideal Presidential candidate. He is smart, good-looking, and well-spoken. He has ideas, and he knows how to communicate them. What’s more, Morris has his finger on the pulse of the country; he knows what people want, and he has something to say about how to give it to them.

But Morris needs Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who is his campaign manager and closest ally. Zara’s experience and political skills are legendary—he is a campaign guru—and his loyalty to Morris is absolutely unshakeable. Indeed, he would quit his job, jump off a bridge, or even shake hands with a Republican before betraying his candidate’s trust.

These characters are easily recognizable, not because they are overly flat or clichéd, but because they know what they stand for, they are consistent, they have their ideas all worked out, and they refuse to give in to the opposition.

Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), Morris’ second-in-command, is somewhat of a different story. He is complicated. Meyers is young, idealistic, and motivated by the hope for a better future. But he is also clever, conniving, and willing to do whatever it takes to win. Meyers thinks that principles like loyalty, honesty, and goodness are important, but he also thinks that (sometimes) the ends justify the means.

As far as Morris’ campaign goes, it looks like it will all come down to Ohio. Meyers and Zara work the phones, talk to supporters, write stump speeches, direct interns—they do everything they can to make sure their guy comes out on top. And it’s working; Morris’ prospects look great.

Rather, Morris’ prospects looked great; that is, until Ohio Republicans conspire to vote for Morris’ Democratic opponent, who is less likely than Morris to win the general election. With this plan in motion, Morris’ hefty lead quickly vanishes. The campaign reaches a fever pitch as everyone scrambles to make the big move that will push Morris over the top.

However, as tensions rise, strategies that were once off the table slide back on the table. Even Meyers, who spews idealism, begins to consider uncouth options—he starts to peer down dark alleys and into smoky back rooms—in order to get his candidate into office. But Meyers is disgusted by what he sees; he is not sure that he can do what it takes to get the job done. For the young, cocksure strategist learns that his intelligence and hard work are not enough to succeed in politics. Meyers learns that he has to get down in the muck, or else hit the showers.

“The Ides of March” is a really good political thriller. Sure, it covers the usual bases: back room deals, betrayal, corruption, tireless stumping, and the byproducts of power. This sort of story, as we know, is as old as Julius Caesar. Nevertheless, this movie is exciting and interesting; it really makes you wonder what is coming next. It’s surprising.

What is not so surprising is that George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Evan Rachel Wood really play their parts well. So well, in fact, that it seems like they actually could succeed as politicians, aides, or strategists. Clooney, who also directs and co-writes “The Ides of March”, really accomplishes a lot here. He makes us think, reflect, and weigh our own values, and he does this without jamming an overwrought message down our throats. And that’s worth watching.

"Moneyball"

2011-10-03T11:36:00.001-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

In 2002, the New York Yankees made over $125 million. Not surprisingly, the Yankees won 103 games that year. The 2002 Oakland Athletics also won 103 games, but their payroll was about $41 million—less than a third of the Yankees’ payroll. So, the Yankees bought wins with aces and all-stars, but the A’s showed that a team can win just as many games without a blank check. They showed that a poor team can win by pinching pennies, by playing smart—that is, by playing Moneyball.

“Moneyball” is a story about how David outsmarts Goliath, but it begins with heartbreak. Despite putting together a great team, Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) stands by as his team crumbles to the Yankees in the 2001 playoffs. That heartbreak only deepens over the next several months as Beane realizes that his team is going to be gutted. The small market A’s cannot afford to keep their stars. They cannot match the massive contracts offered by the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox. $41 million just isn’t what it used to be.

But Beane refuses to wave the white flag. Instead, he gets creative. Beane knows that he cannot afford to sign superstars. He knows that he has to pinch every penny in order to field a legitimate team. So Beane plays Moneyball.

Moneyball is a team-building system that marries baseball, statistics and economics. It is all about getting some bang for a buck or two. Those who adopt the system try to buy as many wins as possible with as little money as possible. They do this by ignoring the he-man homerun hitters and flashy base stealers that earn big money, and instead focusing on gritty players that just get on base. These players are often overlooked (and underpaid), but they score runs and win games. So they are perfect for small market teams.

Thus, Beane rubs two pennies together and creates a 2002 Oakland A’s team that he thinks is built to win. Others—Beane’s scouts, the A’s manager, sports analysts, and fans all over the country—think that Beane is crazy. They think that his team has no shot.

And at first they are right. At first, the 2002 A’s are pitiful. With few wins and even fewer supporters, Beane can only hope that he was right—that things will turn around. His job depends on it. His team depends on it. The A’s fans depend on it.

Whether Moneyball is the way of the future remains to be seen. It is unclear whether it will turn out to be a huge success. What is clear is that “Moneyball” (the movie) is a winner both at the box office and with critics. This movie is undeniably well written and well acted. Brad Pitt and the supporting cast feel like the real thing—like they know what they are doing in the dugout and front office—and Aaron Sorkin (along with Steven Zaillian) comes through once again with a fun and amusing screenplay.

However, unless you find baseball, fantasy sports, statistical analysis, etc., intrinsically interesting, you might find this movie to be forgettable. Heck, I like baseball a lot, and I even have a fantasy sports team, but I found “Moneyball” to be pretty mundane.

Part of the problem is that Moneyball is made out to be for the little guy; it is supposed to be a strategy for outsmarting richer ball clubs. But, in reality, the little guy never wins. The small market A’s are never successful in the playoffs. It is only when the rich Red Sox adopt the system that it meets with any success in the playoffs. So, appearances and tag lines aside, it’s not clear that Moneyball does what it says it does—it’s not clear that it really levels the playing field. Such truths inevitably take a little wind out of this movie’s sails.

“Moneyball” is good, but not as good as it is supposed to be. My guess is that those who are intrigued and excited by the previews for “Moneyball” will like the movie. Those who are curious but don’t really care about the topic will be disappointed.

"Our Idiot Brother"

2011-08-28T11:40:00.000-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

One typically wouldn’t ask a complete stranger to hold onto one’s life savings. And, as a rule, one doesn’t blithely confess one’s crimes to the police. One would have to be an idiot to do that. But, then again, maybe the world could use more idiots like that. That is, if it’s only idiots who are trusting and honest, then maybe there is something to it. For, as “Our Idiot Brother” shows, sometimes the biggest idiots turn out to have the best grasp on what is most important.

Ned (Paul Rudd) is a happy-go-lucky guy selling produce at a farmer’s market when he gets arrested and imprisoned for selling pot to a police officer. Ned takes his punishment in stride, but when he gets out of jail, he quickly finds out that he has nowhere to go. His girlfriend (and roommate) has moved on with her life. And the true love of his life—a golden retriever named ‘Willie Nelson’—now belongs to another.

Heartbroken and confused, Ned stumbles into the arms of his mom (Shirley Knight) and three sisters (Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel, and Emily Mortimer). At first Ned’s family is glad to see him and happy to help him out. However, before too long, Ned’s presence becomes an irritant—his haplessness begins to interfere with the busy lives of the people he loves.

It might be that Ned is an obnoxiously naïve, painfully unaware, horribly unmotivated hippie who can’t be taken seriously. That is, “Our Idiot Brother” might just look like the story of a dope that gets busted for selling dope, and then goes on to ruin his sisters’ lives. On this interpretation, Ned is the goat. He’s simply an idiot.

But this is not what this movie is about. “Our Idiot Brother” is not just the story of a guy who is so honest that he confesses his crimes to his parole officer; it’s also about what others do in the presence of a person who is so open and trusting. It’s the story of a group of people—Ned’s sisters in particular—who are so busy, clever, conniving, and stressed out that they can’t stand the company of someone like Ned.

Which is a shame, because Ned is kind and loving. He is straightforward and incapable of abusing other people for his own gain. It is true that Ned is naïve, and yes, he could stand to grow up a bit. But it may be that Ned’s faults are not really his own. It could be that the only reason Ned looks like a failure is because he lives in a world that rejects his kindheartedness in favor of vindictiveness. One might think (or worry) that the real problem is not Ned’s childlike trust in others, but rather, others’ inability to be trusted.

“Our Idiot Brother” is funny and charming. Paul Rudd, with his long greasy hair, scraggly beard, broad grin, and blank stare, brings Ned to life. The other characters are also fun to watch, although they are far less memorable than Ned.

It is nice (and noteworthy) that, instead of being a hackneyed story about a loveable screw-up who eventually learns to wise up, this movie is about a genuinely good (albeit simpleminded) person who teaches others that kindness is more important than cleverness. Hence, instead of mocking (and thus devaluing) people like Ned, “Our Idiot Brother” celebrates a certain group of folks who are typically misunderstood or marginalized.

This, together with Ned’s infectious smile, makes “Our Idiot Brother” worth seeing.

"Crazy, Stupid, Love"

2011-08-04T10:38:00.001-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

The once imperceptible dull ache of a dying marriage suddenly pulsates anew when Emily (Julianne Moore) tells her husband, Cal (Steve Carell), that she wants a divorce. Cal is dumbfounded. He doesn’t scream or cry. He doesn’t yell or argue. Cal just sits there silently—unresponsive, numb and confused.

Cal does not understand how the love of his life could leave him. But even more, Cal has no idea how a once vibrant relationship could slowly turn boring, dull and flat. Cal is completely at sea, and he is paralyzed by his ignorance. He can do nothing but sit alone at a bar muttering about his failed marriage.

Luckily, Jacob (Ryan Gosling) takes notice. Jacob is Cal’s foil. While Cal is dumpy and plain, Jacob is unmistakably handsome. Whereas Cal’s clothes are out of date and two sizes too big, Jacob’s style is immaculate and his wardrobe is impeccable. As Cal drowns his sorrows with a fruity cocktail, Jacob prowls the bar, martini in hand—the inveterate ladies man.

Maybe Jacob feels for Cal, or maybe he is just tired of seeing Cal mope around the bar, but one way or another, Jacob decides to help Cal turn his life around. He takes him to high-end clothing stores, helps him pick out pricey accessories, and teaches him how to make his ex-wife jealous by picking up beautiful women.

After a few hiccups, Cal manages to master Jacob’s trade. He trades in his middle-aged married lifestyle for the life of a bachelor, picking up plenty of gorgeous women in the process. Meanwhile, Jacob undergoes a transformation of his own. After meeting Hannah (Emma Stone), who is unlike the other women he tends to attract, Jacob considers retiring his chic shades and well-worn pickup lines in favor of something more stable.

As Cal and Jacob undergo these changes, and face the inevitable identity crises that ensue, they begin to consider what they really want in life. For Cal, he doesn’t know whether he wants to continue his new lifestyle or fight for the love and affection of his wife of so many years. Jacob, on the other hand, knows who he wants, but does not know how to abandon the life he once lived.

Each relationship in “Crazy, Stupid, Love” is believable and compelling. Nothing seems forced or manufactured. The attraction, interaction, irritation, disappointment, and the love all seem real. The actors deserve a lot of credit for this. Steve Carell is funny, but doesn’t taint the genuineness of his character by channeling Michael Scott or some other overwhelming personality. And Ryan Gosling is even better than Carell. He plays his part perfectly by being sleazy, but not so sleazy that you aren’t willing to love him in the end.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” is an unconventional movie about love. For one thing, its aims go beyond cheap thrills and funny one-liners (though it has plenty of funny one-liners). It deftly examines the difficult choices and circumstances that surround, and sometimes inflict, one’s love life. Also, it does a good job of highlighting both the good and the bad—the inspiring and the ambiguous—aspects of romantic relationships. There is a refreshing honesty about this movie. More romantic comedies should be like “Crazy, Stupid, Love”.

"Thor"

2011-06-02T13:47:00.001-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Thor, son of Odin, god of thunder, can do anything—he is invincible. Or so he thinks. In fact, Thor’s weaknesses run deep. And, unfortunately, the tragic flaws associated with Thor extend to his self-titled movie. For, much like Thor’s destructive power, “Thor” is somewhat fun to watch, but it is also messy, brutish and unfulfilling.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is heir to the throne of the realm of Asgard. Thor is courageous, honest, and noble. But it’s unclear whether he is fit to lead. For Thor is also arrogant and rash. He is prone to overstating the offenses of others, and he is quick to resolve disputes with the crash of his mighty hammer. Hence, while Thor’s father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is resigned to turning his kingdom over to Thor, he feels uneasy about giving so much power to his reckless son.

Odin’s uneasiness is soon justified when Thor undermines the tenuous peace between Asgard and its former enemy. Thor brings unnecessary war to his people, and this infuriates and saddens Odin. So, with much sorrow, Odin banishes Thor from Asgard and forces his son to live the life of an earthbound mortal.

At first Thor does not fully understand his plight. Upon landing on earth he meets a group of scientists led by Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), and he seems to think that his powers remain intact. So Thor approaches Foster and her group with the same swagger that made him an outcast. But Thor quickly comes to realize that he is no longer invincible. He cannot take on the whole world by himself. He is no more than a burly (and slightly odd) human.

So Thor needs Foster’s help. Foster is intrigued, charmed, but also frightened by Thor. Luckily, her attraction and scientific curiosity ultimately win the day. Foster manages to help, study, and also fall in love with Thor over the course of a day or two. Thor’s powers may have worn off, but his godly allure certainly hasn’t.

Thor works with Foster to understand and overcome the mortal challenges that he faces. Together they learn that Thor’s enemies are not who he thought they were—there is a much more formidable foe lying in wait. Thor tries to regain his old powers in order to subdue this new enemy, but he is further humbled in the process. With more on the line than ever, Thor must overcome his physical weakness, and also his ego and pride, in order to once again save the day.

I don’t know if “Thor” is any good. I must have already forgotten. I guess that makes “Thor” forgettable. In its favor, this movie is chock full of action. It’s fun. And in certain ways it breathes new life into the superhero genre. For Thor is a new kind of superhero. His beaming smile and crushing hammer are especially charming. This movie’s cast is also one of its strengths. Chris Hemsworth is perfectly suited to play Thor, and Natalie Portman is, of course, fantastic.

However, “Thor” has plenty of flaws. For instance, the plot is overcrowded. That is not to say that the movie is particularly complex or confusing. It’s just that too much ground is covered in too little time. There are too many conflicts that need to be resolved and too many threads that need to be developed. Unfortunately, none of the conflicts get a chance to fully play out, and none of the threads are developed convincingly. The external quasi-conflicts between Thor and his detractors are straightforward and mundane—maybe even downright boring. Thor’s internal quasi-conflict over his own pride and recklessness is resolved too quickly. We don’t see the process of change; rather, we see lightning quick reform (maybe this suits the god of thunder). And finally, the quasi-love story between Thor and Foster is unconvincing. This is especially odd and unfortunate because Portman is such a good actress, and Hemsworth … well, he plays a god.

So I don’t know if “Thor” is any good, but at least it has its moments, and at least it is entertaining. That makes it better than many (if not most) superhero movies.

"Fast Five"

2011-05-03T15:35:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

You could probably imagine what it would be like if Vin Diesel fought Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Limbs and torsos would writhe and tangle. A lot of stuff would be broken. Things would happen that couldn’t possibly happen. And there would be an utter lack of sensible dialogue. Yet—and I am slightly embarrassed to say this—it would be fun to watch. And the same things can be said of “Fast Five”. This movie is well over the top. It’s absurd, actually. But in spite of this (or perhaps because of it), “Fast Five” is pretty enjoyable.

After years of running (or driving) afoul of the law, Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) is sentenced to prison. So, naturally, the absurdity—and enjoyment—begins when Toretto is (literally) busted out of a jail bus by Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) and Mia (Jordana Brewster). The crew hightail it to Rio de Janeiro and lay low. That is, for a day or two. But before they have a moment to downshift, Toretto, O’Connor, and Mia are caught up in an ill-conceived heist that almost gets them killed, and does get three U. S. government agents killed.

Hence, the first miracle on the crew’s way to automotive un-sainthood is driving away from the smoldering wreckage that swallows up everyone else. Their second miracle—if they can pull it off—will be to elude the clutches of U. S. special agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson). Toretto, O’Connor and Mia are fast, but Hobbs and his heavy-hitting law enforcement thugs are right on their tail.

And then comes another twist. Toretto, O’Connor and Mia come across highly valuable information concerning the dealings of Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), the kingpin of Rio’s drug-driven underbelly. Emboldened by a mix of self-righteousness and testosterone, the crew decides to use this information to lift Reyes’ ill-gotten treasure. They assemble a team—the best of the best—and hatch a scheme that would make Daniel Ocean proud. They face hardened criminals from one direction and single-minded law enforcement from another direction. They’re between The Rock and a hard place, so to speak. So, in order to get out, Toretto, O’Connor, Mia and their newly formed gang have to do what they do best: put the pedal to the metal.

What “Fast Five” lacks in brains it (almost) makes up for in brawn. Although this movie lacks a smart screenplay, it’s okay, because there is not enough talking in the movie to make the dialogue noticeably irritating. Although the acting is often tough to watch, the actors hardly ever are. And although the plot is a bit shaky and chaotic, it’s fairly easy to be distracted to forgetfulness by the high-octane action and special effects.

In the end, I don’t quite know what I want from a movie like “Fast Five”. I suspect that those who love this genre, and who particularly love the previous “Fast” movies, will be very happy with this movie. I also suspect that those who cannot stand movies with a lot of senseless action, nature-bending stunts and little else, will be dissatisfied with or at least indifferent to “Fast Five”. But there is probably also a borderline class of moviegoers who are open-minded about being bombarded with absurd action, and I think that even some of those people will like “Fast Five”. This is no doubt the mark of this movie’s success.

"Source Code"

2011-04-06T14:32:00.000-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Imagine waking up in a place that you have never even seen before. Everyone else seems to know why you are where you are, but you don’t have a clue. You don’t know where you are, why you are there, or how you got there. This is the “Source Code” experience. Both the main character and we, the audience, are together in the dark, clawing around for clues and answers. This makes “Source Code” both inventive and fun, at least for a while.

When Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a train just outside of Chicago, he is both confused and startled. He is confused because he has no recollection whatsoever of getting on the train, or of being anywhere near Chicago. Colter is startled because, as he becomes conscious of his surroundings, it is obvious that he is not where he is supposed to be. For one thing, the woman sitting across from him on the train—whose name turns out to be ‘Christina’ (Michelle Monaghan)—calls him “Sean” and talks to him as if he were her friend. Colter tries to make sense of his situation. He scrambles for answers. But before he can get a grip, his train explodes—a giant fireball engulfs him, Christina, and everyone else.

But Colter does not die. Rather, he wakes up strapped to a chair in some sort of pod. A video monitor crackles to life and a woman named ‘Goodwin’ (Vera Farmiga), who is dressed in military attire, begins to speak to him. Colter begs for answers, but Goodwin leaves him (as well as the audience) in the dark. All that Colter knows is that he is on a special mission, and that his task is to find out who bombed the train that he was just on.

Then Colter is sent back to the train; he wakes up, just as he did before, across from Christina. Still trying to figure out what is going on, Colter wastes time and energy, and so is once again caught up in the explosion. Time and time again Colter is jolted back to his pod and then sent back to the train. With each trip to the train, Colter comes closer to discovering who the bomber is, and with each trip back to the pod, Colter learns a bit more about the mission and why it was assigned to him.

Colter discovers that he is part of an experimental program in which he taps into the memory traces of someone who has just died. Colter literally relives someone else’s life. The point of this program is to find out information about an event—the explosion, in this case—that only a person who was there would have access to. The U. S. government needs this information because they know that the bomber will attack again soon. Colter’s job is to find out who the bomber is so that this terrorist can be apprehended before it is too late.

The idea behind “Source Code” is inventive and interesting. Although its premise relies on some shakily described science and technology, this movie mostly maintains the minimal threshold of plausibility that is required for the audience to engage with the story. That is, until the end. Unfortunately, at the end, the sort of “anything goes” character of pop physics takes a hold of the plot and runs away with it. And that is both perplexing and frustrating.

But what’s fun about this movie is how we (the audience) get to figure things out at the same time that Colter figures them out. It is as if we, the audience, are being transported back and forth from the train to the pod. Colter knows little more than we do, and as a result, the mystery somehow seems more real. But there is a downside to riding alongside Colter. Being sent back and forth gets tedious—at least, that is, from the audience’s side of the screen. We see the same scene over and over again, and that gets tiring.

In all, “Source Code” is an amusing movie that is worth seeing one time. It does not have much lasting appeal, and the plot gets a bit sloppy at times, but this movie is nonetheless thought provoking and fairly entertaining.

"Hall Pass"

2011-02-27T14:12:00.000-08:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

It is a truism that even the best of marriages are not always a walk in the park. The onus that comes with such a commitment can of course be challenging to bear. It can be easy to imagine how things could have been different.

These things are true of marriage, and unfortunately, they are also true of “Hall Pass”. Despite a likeable cast and a promising premise, this movie is not altogether easy to endure.

Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) are two middle-aged boys who are each suffering from marital doldrums. Although their wives—Maggie (Jenna Fischer) and Grace (Christina Applegate), respectively—are beautiful, loving and kind, the eyes and minds of Rick and Fred are nonetheless prone to wander. They imagine what their lives would be like if they were single; they picture droves of gorgeous women throwing themselves at their feet. They seem to think that, if only they were free to play the field, they would have endless scoring opportunities.

Maggie and Grace cannot help but be embarrassed by the outward manifestations of Rick and Fred’s active fantasy lives and deluded swagger. However, confident that their husbands will in fact strike out if they are given a chance to swing away, Maggie and Grace decide to give them a “hall pass”. Rick and Fred’s hall pass comes in the form of a week off from marriage—a week to do whatever they want without any consequences. Rick and Fred gratefully accept their hall passes, fully expecting to get laid more times in a week than they had in all of the prior decade.

But, even with the help of their equally pathetic forty-something friends, Rick and Fred quickly realize that picking up beautiful women is not as easy as they remembered. They go to all of the wrong places and make all of the wrong moves. In fact, their most noteworthy accomplishment turns out to be the dizzying pace at which they are able to repel women.

Nonetheless, by the end of the week Rick and Fred manage to turn their luck around. After virtually reinventing the wheel, they finally move in on a couple of good-looking (if not altogether savory) women. Meanwhile, Maggie and Grace are, much to their surprise, finding new suitors of their own. And so the wives quickly realize that their husbands are not the only ones who were longing for some kind of change. Rick, Fred, Maggie and Grace must each figure out what is more important: dedication to their respective spouses, or the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take advantage of a hall pass.

Unfortunately, “Hall Pass” is not, in general, funny. Nor is it particularly interesting, thought-provoking, true-to-life, or amusing. The concept behind “Hall Pass” could have made for a worthwhile movie, not of course because any thoughtful couple would consider a hall pass to be a productive marital experiment, but because this movie had a chance to play on the complicated psychology that comes with being married. But directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly turn an interesting concept into a painful and annoying march through emotional and intellectual bankruptcy. It could have been funny to see how being off the market causes Rick and Fred to foster delusions of sexual grandeur. But it wasn’t. There could have been a compelling moral in the way each spouse comes to realize that the costs of playing the field outweigh the benefits. But there wasn’t.

Maybe my hopes were too high for this movie (though that is tough to imagine). But I cannot see how my hopes could have been so modest that they would not have been let down by “Hall Pass”. Even actors who are normally reliable came up short. Owen Wilson, for instance, is normally the height of funny. But in “Hall Pass” he’s not. So it is at times painful to watch Wilson, with his boyish grin and high-pitched voice, trying to turn an intrinsically flat script into something dynamic and charming. Unfortunately, Wilson’s climb is too steep.

By my count, “Hall Pass” has one very funny line (at the very end) and a handful of somewhat funny moments. This does not add up to a good comedy.

"The King's Speech"

2011-01-30T14:31:00.001-08:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Sometimes little details make a big difference, and simple plots make for complex stories. “The King’s Speech”, which is nominated for 12 Oscars (more than any other movie this year), is a perfect illustration. And regardless of whether the attention it is getting is wholly deserved, this movie is thoroughly charming, well executed and, at times, moving.

Albert (Colin Firth), Duke of York and second in line to the throne of England, has a stammering problem. He is a gifted statesman and lucid thinker, but when Albert opens his mouth, his voice fails him. Albert’s jaw tightens up, a harsh guttural noise issues from his throat, and only seldom are words actually produced.

Because he is a duke—the second son of King George V—Albert is required to make public appearances and, every so often, he is asked to give a speech. But despite constant urging from his father and continual help from the best speech pathologists Britain has to offer, Albert flounders in front of the microphone.

After having seen countless doctors and elocutionists, Albert is goaded by his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), into seeing speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel comes off as smart and witty, but his unorthodox methods do not initially meet with Albert’s satisfaction. Lionel asks Albert to perform various (often goofy) physical exercises, while also hinting that Albert’s problem is deeper than physical.

As they work and talk through a wide array of issues, Lionel and Albert become friends. Albert’s rehabilitation is slow and intermittent, but also encouraging. So long as he avoids too much pressure, Albert is able to give passable speeches here and there. Nonetheless, Albert’s feels fortunate that it is his older brother, David (Guy Pierce), and not him, who is set to be thrust into the limelight and onto the throne when their father dies.

Yet, whatever oratorical advantages David possesses are more than offset by his foolhardiness, indifference to the responsibilities that come with the crown, and ignorance of political and foreign affairs. When he is finally crowned King Edward VIII, David’s party guests and love interests capture his attention more often than does his exasperated brother or the impatient British government. As a consequence, Albert begins to realize that he may soon have to take over for his brother. He may be king after all.

With World War II looming, and with countless other domestic and foreign stresses confronting his nation, there is nothing that Albert fears more than the prospect of giving a speech. The mere thought of addressing his people as king seems to make his throat swell. But when he is finally crowned King George VI, Albert must, with the help of Lionel, find a way to rise to his greatest challenge.

“The King’s Speech” is slow and surprisingly simple. It does not contain many (if any) particularly emotional or triumphant moments. More tea is poured than arms drawn, and you are likely to see more special effects in a home video.

And yet, there is something remarkable about this movie. Somehow one man’s stammering is dramatic. Somehow, despite their strict adherence to stiff British etiquette, Albert and Lionel’s relationship is tender, complex, and even stirring. Somehow, “The King’s Speech” is more than the sum of its parts.

Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush deserve most of the credit for the artistic success of this movie. Firth does a marvelous job of communicating how maddening a seemingly small problem can be, and Rush’s cool-headed performance exhibits a perfect balance of patience and wit. I don’t know if “The King’s Speech” is the best picture of the year, but it certainly includes some of the year’s best performances.

"Black Swan"

2011-01-09T13:17:00.000-08:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Black Swan” is the story of an artist’s desperation for perfection. It depicts the tirelessness, obsession and madness that is required for her—and, indeed, for any artist—to be better than the rest. This movie is a thoroughly remarkable cinematic achievement, especially for its director and actors. “Black Swan” is one of the best movies of 2010 and a worthy start to the new year.

“Black Swan” is about a talented but aging ballet dancer named Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman). Nina is the hardest working and most technically proficient member of her company, but she struggles to land major roles because she has difficulty exhibiting the kind of carefree and passionate lust for dancing that wins over audiences. For Nina, dancing is not simply an artistic expression; it is her career, her obsession, her life.

In contrast, Lily (Mila Kunis), who is the newest member of the ballet company, is not as technically gifted a dancer as Nina, but when she dances, she lets loose—she shows the warmth and élan that is absent from Nina’s repertoire.

As the new season opens, “Swan Lake” is scheduled to be the ballet company’s first performance. In this ballet, the lead dancer must master two parts: the pure and elegant White Swan, and her evil twin, the Black Swan. Nina is perfect for the role of the White Swan, and Lily is well suited for the Black Swan. But one dancer must play both roles.

Desperate for the lead role, Nina takes her obsession for perfection to a new level. She practices constantly and strives to master the Black Swan, all while keeping an eye on her competition. Nina makes progress toward her goal, but at the cost of losing her grip on reality. As the opening of “Swan Lake” approaches, Nina must ward off a whole host of challenges, including Lily, her overprotective mother and her own inner demons. Nina’s desperation for mastering the Black Swan threatens to dissolve her mastery over the purity and innocence she once embodied.

“Black Swan” is hardly what one would expect from a movie about ballet. It is edgy and visceral; both gripping and psychotic. Although this movie seamlessly weaves the drama of “Swan Lake” into its plot and score, “Black Swan” is really a horror story. This movie shows that, while competition and obsession do breed drama, they can also give rise to gruesome horrors.

In nearly all of its facets, “Black Swan” is powerful and captivating. Director Darren Aronofsky (who also directed “The Wrestler”) has a special flare for drawing out the behind-the-scenes struggles of entertainers who are grasping for success. He has a talent for portraying the unique battles and insights that come with an obsessive need to please others. Although audiences (of either film or ballet) typically care only about whether the end product that they see is flawless and entertaining, Aronofsky gives his audience a sense of the cost of their (that is to say, our) demands. We see that perfection requires an extremely narrow focus, an obsession with detail, an ignorance of the value of a balanced life, and, indeed, a sort of insanity. Hard work is not the only price that one must pay in order to be great.

“Black Swan” is interesting, and it is extremely well-acted. Natalie Portman’s performance is Oscar-worthy, and both Mila Kunis and Vincent Cassel (who plays the director of “Swan Lake”) provide admirable support. The combination of great acting and Aronofsky’s thematic and cinematic achievements make “Black Swan” a very well rounded movie. It is captivating even when it is not altogether pleasing to watch. So while it is not for the faint of heart, “Black Swan” is, in my view, one of the best movies of 2010.

"Tangled"

2010-12-02T06:53:00.001-08:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

The very best Disney animated movies from the 1980s and 1990s breathed new life into old stories; they took the themes and morals from classic tales and made them relevant to contemporary audiences. “Tangled”—a take on the story of Rapunzel—is worthy of the classic Disney films that came before it. Its animation pops with the latest graphics, but “Tangled” also hearkens back to the strong stories, enrapturing songs, and sentimentality of Disney classics.

“Tangled” is the story of the long-lost, long-locked Rapunzel. Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) is born the treasured daughter of the righteous king and queen of a harmonious kingdom. Despite their power and riches, Rapunzel’s parents value their daughter above all else.

But Rapunzel’s value goes beyond her bloodline. While in labor, the queen, in order to survive childbirth, takes a draught containing a magical golden flower. As a result, Rapunzel’s hair is imbued with special magical properties. So long as it is not cut, Rapunzel’s hair has special healing and regenerative powers.

Unfortunately, Rapunzel’s gift elicits envy. As a consequence, a wicked and self-absorbed woman, who knows about the magical flower that gave Rapunzel her powers, finds Rapunzel and kidnaps her in the dead of night. This woman—Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy)—discovers that so long as she remains in contact with Rapunzel’s hair, she remains young. Thus, she imprisons Rapunzel in a hidden tower, never letting her newfound treasure out of her grasp.

After eighteen years of confinement, Rapunzel is naturally eager to stretch her legs a bit. Her wanderlust is stoked by the fact that, once a year on her birthday, Rapunzel can see thousands of glowing lanterns are set off into the distant sky. Little does she know that these lanterns are released in her honor; they are a token of the king and queen’s heartbreak. But Rapunzel’s instincts are sound—the lost princess wants nothing more than to see the place where these lanterns are lit and released. And yet, Mother Gothel refuses to let Rapunzel go.

Just when Rapunzel thinks that all hope of escape is lost, a dashing (but arrogant) marauder named Flynn Ryder (Zachary Levi) finds his way into Rapunzel’s tower while attempting to escape from the authorities. Rapunzel is initially frightened by Flynn, but quickly sees that he is her way out of the tower. The clever and quick-thinking Rapunzel makes Flynn promise to take her to the lanterns in exchange for a piece of treasure. Rapunzel thus escapes from her tower.

But the twisted and tangled saga of Rapunzel only begins there. With the devious Mother Gothel after Rapunzel, and a whole army after Flynn, Rapunzel’s journey home is winding and treacherous. Add Rapunzel’s budding romantic feelings for her guide, and it is easy to see that Rapunzel has her hands full. The young princess must find the courage to abandon the familiar, follow her heart, and chase her dreams.

“Tangled” is delightful and refreshing in nearly all of its facets. This film is reminiscent of “Aladdin” and “Beauty and the Beast” in that fanciful and carefree energy and wondrous romance are added to an already compelling story. The characters are engaging and believable—partly because their flaws are not muted or shunted aside. What’s more, several of the songs (many of which are sung by Mandy Moore) are instant classics.

In general, it is nice to see a return to the style of classic Disney animated movies, which I think serve as a balance to the now-dominant Pixar movies. Given the nature of their complexity and humor, Pixar films (which are great of course) seem to be aimed at older kids and adults while still being appealing to younger children. In contrast, classic Disney movies like “The Jungle Book” and “Aladdin” strike me as just the opposite; they are aimed at younger children, and yet, older kids and adults can also appreciate them. “Tangled” fits into the latter category. The themes and morals of this movie are simple, and the plot taps into basic emotions like envy, fear, and love. I think that this sort of movie is important (especially for children) because it serves as a bridge from more basic concepts and morals to the complex themes and ideas found in other movies.

In all, “Tangled” is entertaining, endearing, and insightful. It is a success on many levels.

"Hereafter"

2010-11-03T13:16:00.000-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Somewhere between the here and now, and the great beyond—between life and death—lies the hereafter. This ethereal realm is a maze of backlit, monochromatic shapes. Much like the world it seeks to capture, Clint Eastwood’s “Hereafter” is neither here nor there. It is neither memorable nor forgettable, neither compelling nor dull, neither good nor bad. In this movie, Eastwood shows his talent, but also shows that the talented sometimes strikeout.

“Hereafter” follows the story of three individuals in the grip of facts and forces beyond the realm of the physical world. George Lonegan (Matt Damon) is a psychic in denial; he sees his ability to communicate with the dead as a curse rather than a gift. Without intending to do so, George jumps into the misty world of the dearly departed just by making physical contact with any other person. Needless to say, George does not experience the touch of another in anything like the same way that a normal person does. Instead of feeling a human connection, George feels a superhuman connection; instead of warmth, he feels only the cold of death.

Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren) has the opposite problem. Marcus is a small boy who loses someone who is very dear to him, and so is all too familiar with the struggles of the present world. Whereas George wants only to be bereft of the dead, Marcus wants nothing more than to be reunited with the lost. Thus, while George runs from the hereafter, Marcus seeks after it.

Marie Lelay (Ceclie de France) is somewhere in the middle. After having an after-death experience, Marie begins to doubt the firm grounding that was once the wellspring of her success. On the one hand, Marie wants to pretend that her mystical experience was reducible to extreme stress and trauma. On the other hand, Marie cannot deny the deeper reality of what she saw. As a result, Marie meets both internal and external conflict; she struggles to make sense of her experience while also learning more about life after death.

In the end, the stories and needs of each of the characters collide. George, Marcus, and Marie find that they can meet each others’ needs in ways that their friends and loved ones cannot. They each have very different needs and very different abilities, but together they are able to make cohesive sense of some of the bigger questions.
“Hereafter” is sometimes very compelling and interesting, but at other times it is painfully cliché. That is to say, this movie is very uneven. At times, director Clint Eastwood puts his genuine talent on display with carefully crafted scenes that are absolutely stirring. Other scenes that have tremendous potential are ruined by trite dialogue or unnecessarily cheesy talk of the supernatural. Still other scenes are too excruciatingly cliché to even get off of the ground. The end result is a movie that is paradoxically both memorable and forgettable.

Thematically, Eastwood is out of his depth. Certain concepts that are at very least interesting are treated with kid gloves and some genuinely deep questions are answered with mind-numbing shallowness. For instance, when Marie asks her boyfriend if he believes in an afterlife, he responds by saying that he does not believe in an afterlife because he figures that, if there were an afterlife, someone would have discovered it already.

Now, I know that the intellectual depth of a movie’s characters is not tied to or constrained by the brains of the writer or director. But really, in a movie that attempts to take the afterlife seriously, that is the answer?

In all, “Hereafter” is a squandered idea.

"The Social Network"

2010-10-05T05:47:00.001-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

In late 2003, on the storied campus of Harvard University, after a bad breakup and several beers, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) began what would eventually become a multi-billion dollar social networking website called ‘Facebook’. Just seven years later, “The Social Network”, a movie concerning history in the making, chronicles the rise of Zuckerberg and Facebook. Its combination of great directing and even greater writing make “The Social Network” a must-see movie—one of the best of the year.

Far from a romantic inception, the spite-driven, alcohol-fueled epiphany that eventually leads to Facebook is at first nothing more than a website that allows students to compare and rate the attractiveness of Harvard’s female population. Zuckerberg thus gets his first taste of the spotlight, as his original idea, base as it is, quickly draws the attention of both the Harvard student population and the university’s administration.

Despite a hateful onslaught from bitter co-eds and angry deans, Zuckerberg’s whim pays dividends, as two popular and well-connected students—twin brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer and Josh Pence, respectively)—approach Zuckerberg with a business proposal. The Winklevoss brothers ask Zuckerberg to design a social networking website specifically for the students of Harvard University. Unlike MySpace and other social networking sites, the Winklevoss’ proposal puts a premium on status and exclusivity.

Zuckerberg agrees to work with the Winklevoss brothers, but soon thereafter begins building his own website based on the idea that he was given. With the help of his best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), Zuckerberg constructs, tweaks and launches “The Facebook”. The Facebook is an instant success, drawing thousands of hits and requests, and calling for immediate expansion. In near no time, The Facebook is on college campuses across the country and Zuckerberg is the talk of Harvard.

However, the silver lining quickly begins to fade as the Winklevoss storm cloud gathers. Before too long, Zuckerberg finds himself amidst legal turmoil and, worse still, his extremely narrow focus causes his relationship with Saverin to fray. Zuckerberg finds comfort in the encouragement and friendship of Napster creator, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), but he quickly discovers that the attainment of a million online friends may have cost him more than one real friend.

“The Social Network” is a delight to watch. The story, the drama, the acting, the writing, the wit and the humor work perfectly in concert to give substance and style to a story in the making. Director David Fincher and writer Aaron Sorkin make a marvelously quirky film, as each scene brims with frenetic imagery and dialogue.

One might not expect it, but it is somehow enthralling to watch Zuckerberg and Saverin “geek out” over immensely complicated bits of code, programs and algorithms, all while jabbering at a rate that outstrips the expressive power of ordinary English. Aaron Sorkin is truly impressive in his ability to maintain the audience’s interest with dialogue that takes place on an extremely technical level and at a very fast pace. Instead of watering complex ideas down to the level of mere mortals, Sorkin embraces esotericism, showing that a topic can be interesting—downright fascinating—even if you don’t understand it.

Jesse Eisenberg fits his smart-aleck role perfectly, and the rest of the cast (including Justin Timberlake) play their parts admirably. “The Social Network” is rich in plot and character development, and has the added virtue of managing to be both synoptic and relevant. We’re just lucky that a friend request is not required for admission.

"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World"

2010-08-31T12:42:00.001-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is a cornucopia of creative impulses. Each scene of this highly innovative indie-nerd film is an eye-popping blend of the familiar and the exotic. Experiencing the effects and techniques employed in this movie is, simply put, a blast. So much so, in fact, that it is easy to blissfully ignore any of this movie’s flaws.

Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera)—the geeky, twenty-something bass player for the Canadian band, Sex Bob-omb—is nice but naïve. He plays Dance Dance Revolution with as much dexterity and inspiration as he plays his guitar. He wears t-shirts with ironic messages that only die-hard video gamers would understand. He shares a bed with his gay roommate while also dating a high school girl. From the outside looking in, Pilgrim appears to be nothing more than a gentle pedestrian in a world with no sidewalks.

But from the inside looking out (which is the perspective of this movie), Scott Pilgrim is the superhero of his own consciousness. Other characters—both friend and foe—whirl in and out of his waking mind, but this world is somehow his world. He is the center of the universe and the master of his own fate. He earns points for beating bosses, he sustains damage when thwarted and he stoically faces the most epic of dramas.

For most of his life, Pilgrim’s exploits have been limited to the elementary stages of life, through which any newbie could navigate. However, when Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead)—a hip chick worthy of princess status—ambles on screen, Pilgrim quickly realizes that full strength will be required for her notice. In particular, Ramona has seven evil exes with whom Pilgrim must do battle. Only after conquering each bit of fearsome baggage can Pilgrim hope to lay claim to Ramona’s heart.

Pilgrim reluctantly makes his way through Ramona’s exes. Each ex poses a new threat and thus evokes new powers from Pilgrim. For instance, Pilgrim summons uncommon agility and great Kung Foo to defeat Matthew Patel (Satya Bhabha), Ramona’s first kiss. Humility and intelligence are needed to crush Lucas Lee (Chris Evans), Ramona’s rough-and-tumble fling from the past. As Pilgrim conquers each of Ramona’s increasingly intimidating exes, he begins to see an ever so dim light at the end of the tunnel. But before he can win the girl, he must channel even more formidable powers and be willing to lose it all.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is filled with a constant barrage of videogame themes, cultural icons and fantasy stereotypes. Everything from Zelda to Tekken to Seinfeld is referenced. The audience’s focus is thus bounced around like a pinball, and it is impossible to get set in any particular mindset. Needless to say, viewing this movie is chaotic in a certain way. But fortunately, the chaos fits; it all makes sense; it feels natural. Pilgrim’s consciousness is embellished as if it were all a dream (and who’s to say it isn’t?), but his darting awareness is on pace with any love-struck romantic with an eye toward winning someone over.

The animation and quirky effects of this movie are enough to win an audience over, but there is more to this film than glitter. Michael Cera is, as always, very funny. His understated and awkward persona meshes perfectly with his character. In fact, it is hard to imagine this movie without Cera. It is also interesting to draw parallels between Pilgrim’s fantasy world and what goes on (or is going on) in the real world. The symbolism may have come across as too obvious if it was not shrouded in so many flashes and bangs, but it is intriguing nonetheless.

The story hiding beneath the story is one of this movie’s few flaws. Once all of the fantastic outer layers are peeled back, we see a mundane and confusing narrative that is well short of compelling. However, it is all too easy to shrug one’s shoulders here, as the virtues of “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” far outweigh its vices.

"Dinner for Schmucks"

2010-08-08T11:33:00.000-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

There are friends and then there are friends. Some friends are genuine and caring, while others—the merely ‘so-called’ sort—are prone to manipulation and backstabbing. Most people, at some point in their life, have known each kind of friend. But telling the difference—the difference between genuine interest and supercilious game playing—can be a tall task, and an unfair and hurtful one at that. “Dinner for Schmucks” attempts to tap into that drama, and despite fumbling with its material, this movie is worth a laugh or two.

Tim (Paul Rudd) is a promising businessman working at a top financial firm. Like most businessmen, he is ambitious; he wants to do well. However, perhaps unlike what typifies his kind, Tim is also honest and principled; there are some lengths that he will not go to in order to get ahead.

Thus, Tim is ripe for a moral dilemma. After dazzling the higher-ups with an impressive presentation, Tim appears to be on the fast track to a big promotion. But before he can land the job, there is one final step that he must take. He must attend a dinner organized by his boss where each host is responsible for inviting some extraordinarily foolish individual purely for the sardonic enjoyment of the self-important execs who invited them.

True to his more noble self—and at the pleading of his girlfriend, Julie (Stephanie Szostak)—Tim decides that he cannot take part in such cruel behavior. Or, that is what he had decided, until he (literally) runs into the perfect person to invite to the dinner—Barry (Steve Carell). Barry is an eccentric loner whose only friends are the furry mice he stuffs and turns into figurines meant to look like famous people. Barry is just the kind of dope that would surely land Tim the job, and so Tim hesitantly invites him to a dinner for schmucks.

As he has no friends and nothing better to do, Barry is delighted to accept the dinner invitation. However, Barry also interprets the invitation as an offer of full-fledged friendship. As a result, Tim soon finds himself unable to get rid of the overeager and mentally clumsy Barry. Barry’s heart is in the right place, but he cannot help but nose in and ruin just about every aspect of Tim’s life—his home, his job, his health, his relationship with Julie, etc.

As the dinner approaches, Tim frantically attempts to hold the pieces of his life together, all while impressing his boss and swatting away the buzzing gnat that is Barry. This high-wire act forces Tim to choose between being the nice guy who never gets the promotion, and the cut-throat executive who has no real friends.

“Dinner for Schmucks” is better than the previews may suggest, and also better than its absolutely trite story. This modicum of success is largely attributable to the highly loveable leads, Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, as well as to a perhaps even more loveable supporting cast of Zack Galifianakis and Jemaine Clement. This movie relies on individually funny moments—individual lines delivered by funny people—and there are indeed a handful of such moments.

However, “Dinner for Schmucks” has a forgettable story (probably because it feels like an amalgam of so many other movies) and it is way too long. The reason it is way too long has less to do with the number of minutes in the movie and more to do with the tension turned tedium that comes from this movie’s seemingly endless comedy of errors. The slapstick humor and painful mistakes that emanate from Barry are humorously uncomfortable at first, but as time goes on, these mistakes become unbearable to watch. By the end of this movie, one is torn between shouting “I get it already!” and “Tim, would you just shut Barry up already!”

In all, “Dinner for Schmucks” is bearable and even sometimes entertaining. It is the kind of movie that, if you go in with low expectations, you will be pleasantly surprised, but if you go in with high hopes, you are bound to be disappointed.

“Dinner for Schmucks” is rated PG-13 for sequences of crude and sexual content, some partial nudity and language.

"Toy Story 3"

2010-07-01T11:46:00.000-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Woody, Buzz, Rex, Ham, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Jesse and Slinky Dog—they’re all back. Andy’s famous and motley bunch of toys has returned for one last adventure and to deliver one more thrill for viewers. As ever, with the aide of several hilarious new toys, “Toy Story 3” possesses the characteristic charm that typifies all of Pixar’s movies and the Toy Story series in particular.

In “Toy Story 3”, the plastic denizens of Andy’s bedroom face dreaded separation from their beloved owner as he heads off to college. This is in many ways a toy’s worst nightmare (as we learned in “Toy Story 2”), and basically, there are three possible outcomes—three potential destinies—for each of Andy’s toys: (1) Go to college with Andy, (2) get packed up and thrown in the attic, or (3) get donated to a local daycare. Ultimately, Andy decides to throw Woody (Tome Hanks) in the “College” box and pack up Buzz (Tim Allen), Jesse (Joan Cusack) and the rest of the toys for storage in the attic.

However, when Andy’s mom mistakes the bag of old toys for trash, most of Andy’s toys are left feeling abused in the worst way. Woody does his best to convince his dejected and embittered friends to return home, but before he knows it, the other toys have managed to donate themselves to the glittery carpet and finger-paint-laden plastic furniture of Sunnyside Daycare.

At first glance, Sunnyside appears to be nothing short of toy heaven. Woody and his gang are met by hundreds of friendly faces, including a jolly stuffed bear named Lotso (Ned Beatty) and a debonair Ken doll (Michael Keaton) who, of course, comes with dream mansion included. Lotso is the loving leader of Ken and scores of other toys who are happy and content to never be neglected nor abandoned.

However, the happiness is short lived. Woody heads home, and soon thereafter Lotso shows the rest of the toys that his plush underbelly belies an inner totalitarian spirit. As a result, Andy’s former playthings find themselves trapped and forced to endure the chewing, slobbering and downright destruction that takes place in the toddler section of the daycare.

When Woody learns of his friends’ plight at Sunnyside, he sets off on a rescue mission. With the help of news friends, and at the mercy of new foes, Woody and his friends hatch an unlikely escape plan in an attempt to once again get home to Andy.

The loyalty of these toys to Andy is unconditional and seemingly hard-wired, but through their shared experiences they find themselves committed to each other with nearly as much fealty. When these two loyalties diverge, a conflict naturally arises. Should these toys support Andy to the hilt, abiding by his every wish, or should they put their small community of toys first? Or should they simply look out for number one? These questions get asked over and over again in the Toy Story series. I suppose these are nothing more than the normal problems that arise for plastic playthings in possession of consciousness and rationality. But, oddly enough, in asking what commitments and responsibilities are most pressing for animated bits of plastic and fabric, we are reminded to ask the very same questions of ourselves.

“Toy Story 3” is disappointing in just one trifling respect. That is, the story is nothing new. There is a new setting, new toys and a new ending, but the twists and turns are basically the same. What made “Toy Story 2” so good, in my view, was that it combined all that was clever and intrinsically charming in the first movie with a novel and interesting scenario. “Toy Story 3” did not evolve in this way. Part of me is fine with this; part of me wants for everything to stay the same. But another part of me wishes that, just as Andy grew up and moved to college, this series would have moved on as well.

Nonetheless, this film is as witty and gladdening as any Pixar film. Woody, Buzz and the crew are in top form, and the additions of Ken and Lotso are priceless (after all, what could be more fulfilling, if is toys we are talking about, than finding out what a Ken doll is like when the lights are out?). “Toy Story 3” is also powerful emotionally. As the toys bind together and say goodbye to Andy and us, the audience, this movie is liable to draw as many tears as laughs.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop"

2010-06-03T08:56:00.000-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

On the surface, “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is a documentary about a failed documentary. At face value, it is a story about an eccentric, industrious, energetic, and perhaps completely talentless man who yet somehow manages to take the art world by storm. But below this narrative veil, “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is really all about art—what it means to make art, what it means to view art, what it means to challenge the definition of art, and most importantly, what it means to be an artist. As it happens, “Exit Through the Gift Shot” is itself a work of art—a masterpiece of documentary filmmaking.

This movie begins and ends with Thierry Guetta, an enigmatic Frenchman who haphazardly transforms himself from an amateur filmmaker and purveyor of overpriced clothing into a controversial street art icon. At the outset—as the owner of a Los Angeles clothing store—Guetta earns a living by selling unremarkable clothes at a remarkable price. In the end—as a street artist named ‘Mr. Brainwash’—Guetta is as entrepreneurial as ever, and even more financially successful. But when the credits roll, what remains unclear is whether art is Geutta’s business, or business his art.

Guetta’s infiltration into the underground art scene is in part the result of an obsession with filming. For Guetta, no moment is too dull, no scene too drab, to be captured on film. Thus, when Guetta discovers that his cousin is a street artist who illegally paints and pastes familiar images of arcade aliens on freeway overpasses, street signs, curbs, etc, he begins to film his cousin’s work as an outlet for his obsession. Conversely, Guetta’s cousin and other street artists find Guetta to be useful as an assistant and lookout guy, and so allow him to tag along, camera in hand.

Over the course of several years, Guetta captures countless street artists on film; yet, one great street artist eludes him: the reclusive British legend, Banksy. Banksy, who is something like the Batman of street art, is famed for his pithy and ingenious artwork at high profile sites in London and around the world. By coincidence, Guetta finally meets Banksy in Los Angeles and manages to earn his trust. Although Banksy refuses to have his true identity revealed on film, he encourages Guetta to turn his video collection into a documentary. Guetta thus begins to edit thousands of hours of unwatched tape in the hopes of making a movie worthy of the great Banksy.

Unfortunately, Guetta’s movie is terrible. It is a buzzing mess. Banksy calls it “unwatchable,” and he realizes that Guetta is more of an obsessive hack than a genuine filmmaker. Nonetheless, Guetta is persistent, and he takes some reserved encouragement from Banksy as a sign that he is destined to be an artist. Guetta consequently adopts the moniker “Mr. Brainwash” and decides to use the clout of his acquaintances in the art community to build up tremendous hype for his own art show. With this show, Guetta seeks the vindication of his artistic abilities. Banksy, on the other hand, maintains that any praise for Guetta’s art says more about the art community (and perhaps more about art) than it does about the quality of Guetta’s work itself.

“Exit Through the Gift Shop” is a complex and beautifully crafted documentary that evokes the kind of thought and discussion that cannot possibly be canvassed here. This film is about a man who is the ultimate audience member; he is the paradigmatic viewer. And yet, this man—Guetta—fails in his attempt to capture the meaning of the art he sees. Interestingly, the creator of “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is none other than Banksy. Thus, the artist becomes the observer—he becomes conscious of his audience; he interprets his audience. In the world of street art—where the relationship between the artist and his or her audience is both critical and dynamic—Banksy has shown that he is capable of taking his craft to the next level, all while remaining anonymous. In making this clever (and hilarious, I might add) film, Banksy has at once become both Batman and the Joker.

"City Island"

2010-05-05T09:08:00.000-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Everybody has secrets. Some are small secrets, such as when Carl covertly plans a trip to South America to surprise Ellie in “UP”, or when Ellie completes the photo album without Carl knowing about it. Then there are bigger secrets, like in “Avatar”, when Jake fails to tell Neytiri that he is actually aiding the U. S. government’s plot to destroy her home; or, in “An Education”, when David withholds the fact that he is married from Jenny.

Much like the characters in all of these recent movies, everybody in “City Island” has secrets, and some of them are bigger than others. However, unlike those films that have successfully captured the unintended and sometimes devastating effects of lies and deception, “City Island” has nothing new to offer. This movie is mostly unoriginal, often poorly acted and, most importantly, it just lacks that certain bounce—that verve—that is so often the saving grace of comedies that center on a dysfunctional family.

Vince Rizzo (Andy Garcia) is a simple, straightforward guy with a thick but down-to-earth New York accent. He was born and raised in City Island, which (believe it or not) is a quaint little fishing village in the Bronx. Vince is a college dropout that struck gold with a job as a prison guard and a vocation as the head of a beautiful family.

But despite his no-nonsense, “what you see is what you get” demeanor, Vince has a few secrets. For example, Vince smokes cigarettes (though, unbeknownst to him, everyone else in his family secretly smokes too). Also, Vince secretly dreams of one day becoming an actor. In fact, Vince takes acting classes at night, but he tells his family that he is just playing poker with the guys.

Vince also has some bigger secrets. For instance, long, long ago, he fathered a child out of wedlock and ran out on the mother. Thus, Vince is the father of an estranged son named Tony (Steven Strait)—a son who Vince finds out happens to be an inmate at his prison. For better or worse, Vince gets Tony released into his custody and brings him home to meet the family. Vince tells his family that Tony is a convict, but neglects to tell them that Tony is his convict, in the most literal sense of ‘his’.

Not surprisingly, Tony has some trust issues. But then again, so does every other member of Vince’s family. Vince’s daughter Vivian (Dominik Garcia-Lorido) only pretends to be a college student. In reality, Vivian is a stripper. Vince Jr. (Ezra Miller), a skinny, sarcastic high schooler, is hiding a secret sexual fetish for feeding mountains of food to obese women. And Joyce (Julianna Margulies), Vince’s wife, is attempting to suppress (or maybe just mask) her unbearable romantic attraction to Tony, who is, of course, her husband’s son.

As all of the secrets eventually come out and the shouting reaches a fever pitch, Tony ends up looking like the most normal, most well adjusted, member of the Rizzo household. With a little prodding from convict, the family learns that it must fess up or break up, even when spilling the beans turns out to be more difficult than one might have imagined.

“City Island” is rigidly formulaic, and thus, just as day follows the night, this story follows many movies before it with the same tired and predictable plot. Andy Garcia does an adequate job playing a Joe Shmo New Yorker, but every other performance is spotty at best. The result is sometimes funny, but mostly awkward.

However, I should not pretend that this movie is never entertaining. After all, it is hard not to be entertained when the threads of countless webs of deceit all weave together. But, in all, this movie feels like a cheap thrill. It leaves you empty and a bit nauseous, like the slightly sick feeling one gets when riding a carnival ride that just spins you around and around and around.

"How to Train Your Dragon"

2010-03-31T16:48:00.000-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

For some unknown or inexplicable reason, certain people just don’t have any luck. Through no fault of their own, these people simply have to put up with a lot more than others. They work hard but still get fired. They buy roses and giant stuffed animals for Valentine’s Day, only to be broken up with before the flowers are in a vase. However, these people—this unfortunate lot—can at least be grateful in knowing that things could be worse. For instance, they could have dragons chasing them around town on a regular basis. They could have fire nipping at their heals as they attempt to elude those giant winged reptiles.

This is just the kind of thing that the villagers in “How to Train Your Dragon” have to put up with. Luckily, these hardships and their playing out are anything but painful from the audience’s perspective. With the help of great 3-D animation and a fantastic score, “How to Train Your Dragon” more than compensates for its hackneyed plot structure.

The town in which this story is set is a small fishing village. This is a cold, stony, rainy kind of place—the kind of place that could only a thick and hardy kind of people could inhabit. And as if perpetual rain mixed with regular hail were not enough, from time to time, dragons of all shapes and sizes swoop down from the skies; they gobble up sheep and fish, burn houses and barns, and terrorize the locals.

These are the hazards that come with being a Viking. Thus, chief among the many virtues prized by the Vikings of this town is the ability to fight dragons. Stoick (Gerard Butler), an aptly named Viking of giant proportions, is the leader of this village and the best dragon killer in town. His tree-trunk arms and bushy beard reflect the stoutness of his character as well as his merit on the battlefield.

But Stoick has a problem. This problem comes in the form of Stoick’s skinny, stringy, scrawny son, Hiccup (Jay Baruchel). Hiccup wants to fight dragons, but his inability to wield even the merest of battleaxes precludes him from waging war. When the cries of battle rend the night air, Hiccup is either brushed aside or forced indoors.

This routine embarrassment is interrupted one night when Hiccup wanders off during a particularly fierce battle. With the aid of a clever contraption he built, Hiccup manages to shoot down the most dreaded of all dragons, the Night Fury. When Hiccup finds the trapped and injured dragon deep in the woods, he is given the opportunity to become a Viking hero. However, after looking into the eyes of this helpless dragon, Hiccup cannot kill it. Instead, he frees the dragon and in doing so earns the trust of his former foe.

With the villagers none the wiser, Hiccup befriends the dragon (which he names “Toothless”) and nurses it back to health. Toothless, who once seemed to be the devil incarnate, now looks like nothing more than a playful pet—some sort of overgrown Boston Terrier.

However, as time passes, the unfortunate implications of Hiccup’s extracurricular activities become evident. Hiccup must ultimately choose between the acceptance of his people on the one hand and the wellbeing of his new best friend on the other. Hiccup must either find a way to foster harmony between the Vikings and the dragons, or he must watch all those he loves perish.

“How to Train Your Dragon” has a very familiar plotline: Outcast finds unlikely friend. Friend helps outcast earn the respect of others. Others find out about friend. Outcast once again becomes an outcast. Outcast saves the day and unites his friend and others. Nothing new here. Luckily, this movie breathes new life into a tired plot. This is in large part because the animation is breathtaking (finally an animated movie shows what 3-D technology can do!) and the music is wonderful.

The characters in this movie are also endearing, and the story moves at just the right pace. The final battle scene, I am a little embarrassed to admit, sent chills down my spine. So while “How to Train your Dragon” does not show the ingenuity of Pixar films, it is definitely worth seeing.

"The White Ribbon"

2010-03-03T08:11:00.000-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“The White Ribbon” continues a recent (and wonderfully successful) German penchant for producing dark and disturbing historical dramas while also harkening back to great German films of old. Writer and director, Michael Haneke, who is best know for making “Cache” and “Funny Games”, channels legendary filmmaker Ingmar Bergman in this slow-moving but very intriguing movie about innocence, crime and guilt.

Set in a small German town before the start of World War I, “The White Ribbon” opens with a mystery. While riding into his garden after a long day of work, the town doctor’s horse trips over a nearly invisible wire that has been stretched between two trees. As a result, the doctor (Rainer Bock) is catapulted from his horse and ends up breaking his collarbone. The citizens of the town, who are not used to drama of any kind, are perplexed by this sinister prank. Countless men, women and children are questioned, but no culprit is found.

Amidst the uproar, the concern of the townsfolk is diverted when a local woman is killed while at work in the sawmill. This death appears to be no more than an accident, but the woman’s family is inclined to blame the baron (Ulrich Tukur), who transferred the woman to work at the sawmill after she had sustained an injury.

These tragic events arouse the interest of all the denizens of the sleepy town, but none more so than a group of repressed and ornery children. Parents attempt to corral their kids, but find such a task difficult amidst the uproar caused by injury and death. The town’s pastor (Burghart Klaussner) is particularly concerned with the moral education of his children, and so he punishes misbehavior by making two of his children wear a white ribbon. The white ribbon is intended to remind the bearer of purity and is thereby meant to serve as a deterrent from wrongdoing.

Whether or not the white ribbons make a difference for the pastor’s children, the mischievousness that began with the prank on the doctor reaches a new level. What once seemed to be a series of unrelated incidents begins to look like the concerted work of a single mind. Innocence seems to fade from a once peaceful town. Motivated by outrage, anger and a sense of injustice, many prominent citizens of the town—from the baron to the pastor to the town’s schoolteacher (Christian Friedel)—begin to investigate the crimes. But once again, no culprit is forthcoming. This lack of progress is due in part to the fact that each investigator is preoccupied with his or her own affairs and in part to the fact that each investigator has his or her own distinct suspicions. Amidst uncertainty, the entire town is torn between the desire to bring justice to the culprit and the desire to return to normalcy.

“The White Ribbon” is laced with uncertainty and ambiguity from beginning to end. Possible resolutions are as evanescent for the viewer as they are for the townsfolk. This is a fresh and interesting way to make a movie, and it is a device that has come to characterize Haneke’s work. What makes the lack of certainty in “The White Ribbon” particularly interesting is that it is not simply uncertainty for uncertainty’s sake. That is, its ambiguity is not a mere novelty. By the end of this movie, the audience will not only have considered several possible explanations for the story’s events (as have the various characters in the story); they will have also recognized that each possible scenario comes with its own significance and meaning. Were these crimes the work of a particularly sinful and mean-spirited member of the community? Or were they the result of repression—a reaction to religious indoctrination? Or were they ultimately God’s punishment for the sins of the town?

“The White Ribbon” certainly deserves its Academy Award nominations for Best Cinematography and Best Foreign Film. It is intriguing and beautifully shot. The slow pace, black-and-white cinematography, and weighty themes of this movie are reminiscent of (though not quite on par with) the work of Ingmar Bergman, who is famous for movies like “The Seventh Seal,” “Wild Strawberries” and “Winter’s Light”. This movie is not for those who demand action and entertainment, for this movie has demands of its own. “The White Ribbon” requires patience and meditation. Luckily, this movie is worth the effort.

"Crazy Heart"

2010-02-03T20:09:00.001-08:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Jeff Bridges is Bad Blake, and with his help, “Crazy Heart” finds a way to surpass other movies of its kind. “Crazy Heart” does not do substantively more than has already been done, but this movie succeeds insofar as it mirrors a true country song; that is, with a slow pace and words that reverberate long after they have been sung.

Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) is a real country musician; he isn’t packaged, censored, or gentile. His charm is in his repudiation of all things charming, and his gravelly voice and stubbly beard don’t give due to his name nearly as well as does his lifestyle and demeanor. In short, Bad Blake is made from the stuff of legends.

Unfortunately, even legends age, and unless they can evolve into a new phase of fame, legends die. Bad Blake is no exception. By the outset of “Crazy Heart”, Blake has already made the transition from a country music rock star that strums to the sound of 10,000 screaming fans into a washed-up has-been croaking to the beat of the murmurings and vacuum cleaners at local bowling alleys.

Blake’s agent begs him to write new material—to adjust to the new demands of his art—but Blake is prevented from revamping his career by the strain of countless roadside venues and the wear of too many long nights of heavy drinking. That is, until Jean Craddock drops in for an interview.

Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is a local newspaper reporter who catches a break when Blake agrees to do an interview with her. However, the real purpose of the interview is obscured by the ever-amorous Blake, who is more interested in wooing Craddock than he is in scoring some local press. After several loosely conducted interviews Craddock begins to get a deeper sense of Blake, both professionally and personally. Despite the fact that Blake has already been married four times and has a reputation as a philanderer, Craddock cannot help but fall in love with the aging icon.

Craddock gives Blake a new verve that shakes him from his musical slumber. The new Bad Blake finds his creativity piqued in the twilight of his career as he strives to be successful while also allowing himself to be tamed by Craddock and her son, Buddy (Jack Nation).

But Blake’s renaissance is not without its tensions. In particular, the aging musician battles an alcohol addiction—one that not only threatens his increasingly fragile health, but also puts strain on his budding relationships. Bad Blake must reform or decline; remake himself or die.

At first, “Crazy Heart” has the feel of musical biography films like “Walk the Line” or “Ray”. This is rather odd, considering that Bad Black is a fictional character, and much of the appeal of musical biography films is in their ability to expose the human side of real-life legends. Nonetheless, Bad Black feels real, and so do his struggles.

Now, I must confess that the appeal of this genre of film is somewhat lost on me. I do not understand what is so intrinsically interesting about aging and washed-up head cases that aimlessly veer towards destruction. So I cannot say much in favor of that aspect of “Crazy Heart”. But what I can say is that Jeff Bridges is utterly fantastic. Bridges sings all of his own songs, for instance, and if he were not every note, strum, and swig of Bad Black in another life, you wouldn’t know it.

The themes in this movie are also interesting. Even if they are a bit clichéd, their artistic delivery gives them new life. Perhaps the most transfixing moment of the whole movie takes place during the closing credits when “The Weary Kind”—the movie’s theme song—is sung by Ryan Bingham. This song’s melody and lyrics perfectly capture the tenor of this movie.

“Your body aches, playin’ your guitar, sweatin’ out the haze. The days and the nights all feel the same. Whisky has been the thorn in your side; it doesn’t forgive … This aint no place for the weary kind. This aint no place to lose your mind. This aint no place to fall behind. Pick up your crazy heart and give it one more try.”

“A Single Man”

2010-01-08T10:16:00.001-08:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

In his directorial debut, fashion designer Tom Ford shows a certain cinematic deftness that belies his lack of experience in film. “A Single Man” is a beautifully shot and wonderfully acted movie about George (Colin Firth), an English professor who is coping with the death of his long-time partner, Jim (Matthew Goode). Although the story develops perhaps too slowly—at a snail’s pace, really—the careful attention given to the aesthetic of each moment and each scene of this movie makes “A Single Man” a success.

George is a private, somewhat reserved man who is only brought to life by meaningful interactions with a few people—most notably, Jim. Thus, when Jim dies, George feels alone and in many ways bereft of vitality. The only living person who seems to be of comfort to George is his ex-girlfriend Charley (Julianne Moore); but even their relationship is strained by the fact that Charley is clearly still in love with George. Glimpses of color visit George from time to time, but such chimeras are promptly interrupted by golden yet painful memories of an older, better life. George’s mind and heart live in the past, and hence, have no dwelling in the present. Every moment is misery for George; each passing moment of his existence is more fragile than the one before it.

However, while George seems entirely oblivious to the world, others do their best to shake him from his reveries. Kenny (Nicholas Hoult), a college student enrolled in the class that George teaches, and Carlos (Jon Kortajarena), a male prostitute, take a persistent interest in George, despite his reluctance to form attachments. Kenny and Carlos serve to complicate the ominous plans of George, who cannot decide whether or not life is worth living. He is rendered inert by the past and has given up on the present, and so George has only the prospects of the future to consider. When each passing day is no better or worse than the next, George must ask himself: is the dim hope of tomorrow worth sticking around to see?

“A Single Man” is nothing if not beautifully composed. The fact that Tom Ford is a fashion designer truly shines through in this movie. The chic wardrobe, for example, or the jaunty posture with which Colin Firth walks, makes each scene distinctively hip and teeming with style. What is more, Ford adeptly applies his aesthetic eye to the cinematography of the movie in a way that is often understated but immensely expressive. Tight shots of an actor’s lips or eyes and gentle changes in the tone of the colors reveal more about the characters and the story than do any of the words.

Beyond the look of the movie, the acting is worthy of note. In particular, Colin Firth plays the part of a mourning yet dignified intellectual with the utmost ease. It is somehow easy to believe that Firth must really be George, if ever such a person existed.

If “A Single Man” has a flaw it is that the story lags. In fact, it is probably more accurate to describe this movie as a meditation on the emotional experience of loss rather than as a plot-driven narrative. There are certainly some interesting (and maybe even profound) ideas tossed about here and there, but it is clear that Ford’s primary goal is the achievement of a look or feel, and not the telling of a story or the communication of ideas.

Nonetheless, “A Single Man” is an interesting and gripping film that is truly a unique experience; it is a rather nice accomplishment for Ford in his first movie.

"The Fantastic Mr. Fox"

2009-12-05T12:16:00.000-08:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Of the many animated films that have and will draw hoards of merry moviegoers this holiday season, Wes Anderson’s retro, stop-action movie called “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” may be the only animated film that is a must-see. Nearly every moment of this movie is breathtakingly beautiful and immensely entertaining.

By nature, Mr. Fox (George Clooney) is a daring scavenger—a voracious burglar—who moves quickly and acts on instinct. In other words, Mr. Fox is a wild animal. But like many things that are wild, Mr. Fox has a gentlemanly side to him as well. He is often thoughtful and reflective, and he cares deeply about the welfare of those he loves. So when Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) announces that she is pregnant, Mr. Fox agrees to give up his regular practice of raiding the chicken coops of nearby farms. Mr. Fox properly gentrifies; he becomes the kind of fox that is family-oriented. Despite the persisting glint of adventure in his eyes and occasional displays of untamed behavior, Mr. Fox pursues all of the humdrum virtues appropriate to the middle class: a new tree to call home, a stable economic portfolio (as handled by Badger (Bill Murray)), and a good education for his son, Ash (Jason Schwartzman). As is, Mr. Fox’s new life is just satisfying enough to keep him from reacting to the unrest and slightly neutered feeling that inevitably inheres in a wild animal that has been tamed.

However, when he learns of the local success of three ruthless and calculating tycoon farmers, Mr. Fox cannot resist the temptation to revisit the wild, liberated days of old. With an opossum named Kylie (Wally Wolodarsky) as an accomplice, Mr. Fox hatches new schemes to thieve and plunder the ample stocks of the farmers. At first, all goes according to plan. The farmers are unable to protect their products, and the Fox family is richer and happier than ever.

The well conceived plans of Mr. Fox come to an end, though, as the farmers find the Fox home and lay siege to it. Mr. Fox and his family are only able to escape certain death by burrowing deep under ground, and there ensues a point/counterpoint between the furry of the farmers and the wiles of their animal opponents. Each time Mr. Fox and his family and friends (who are also objects of the farmers’ ire) seem to elude the clutches of their foes, new perils await them. In this battle between man and animal, Mr. Fox must learn to balance his instincts and his intelligence—his wildness and his tameness—in order to prove equal to the might and resources of the farmers.

“The Fantastic Mr. Fox” has the same beauty and flare as other of Wes Anderson’s masterstrokes (e.g. “The Royal Tenenbaums”, “The Darjeeling Limited”); however, “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” is somehow alone among Anderson’s films in its appeal with respect to a very wide range of viewers. While Anderson’s “The Royal Tenenbaums”, for example, is surely a work of art, it is also quirky, idiosyncratic—an acquired taste. “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” is also quirky, but its charm is immediate, self-evident and irresistible for anyone save Ebenezer Scrooge. One reason for this universal appeal is the fact that Anderson turns what moviegoers have come to know as grotesque and ugly animation—that is, stop-action animation—into a dancing, vivacious presentation. The artistic execution of this movie approaches the very limits of the medium in which it was created.

What is perhaps even more impressive than the look of this movie is how well Anderson’s signature vernacular translates into the animal world. The language in all of Anderson’s films is characterized by quickness, understated honesty, and a certain existential profundity that has an absurd but unmistakably hilarious quality to it. This quality is somehow enhanced when instantiated in animal dolls. Just imagine a well-dressed and intelligent fox who, while looking deep into the eyes of another such fox, utters in a confessional tone, “The truth about me is, I’m a wild animal,” and then goes on to admit that he is still dealing with what exactly that means. In short, “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a masterpiece; the best movie of the season, if not the year.

"The Men Who Stare at Goats"

2009-11-09T07:04:00.000-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

The mission: to develop the psychic powers of gifted soldiers to a level so great that they are able to stop a goat’s heart just by staring at it or break up cloud formations by merely wishing it to be so. The objective: to bring peace to the world by mentally disarming hostile armies. The movie: “The Men Who Stare at Goats.”

“The Men Who Stare at Goats” is a goofy but clever movie that is fueled by the skillful work of George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey and Ewan McGregor. As it is, this film is rather flimsy, but worth a grin and a chuckle for both its situational humor and sardonic plot.

Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) is a small-time reporter who is shaken from his suburban reverie when his wife leaves him for his boss. Intent on impressing his wife (or proving that she was wrong), Wilton goes to Iraq to become a real reporter—a wartime correspondent. Unfortunately, Wilton has a hard time breaking into the old boys club that constitutes the Iraq War news troupe, and so he is left feeling as impotent as ever.

However, patience finally avails Wilton, and his big break comes in the form of Lynn Cassady, a leading member of a top secret military organization called ‘The New Earth Army’, which focuses on developing the psychic powers of mentally gifted soldiers. Wilton is grateful for the intriguing story, but finds himself unable to believe the grandiose claims to power attested to by Cassady, for the psychic cohort described by Cassady seems less like a group of dedicated geniuses and more like a group of hippie crackpots. The soldiers of the New Earth Army do not conduct scientific experiments on brains or study the psychological makeup of combatants; instead, these men prance with flowers, do yoga, pray to the earth for guidance, and stare at goats.

Despite his skepticism, Wilton goes along for the ride with an open mind. He and Cassady travel deep into Iraq—one looking for a story and the other looking to accomplish a mission. Wilton quickly learns that, with Cassady, there is a very fine line between ineptitude and genius, for Cassady gets the pair in and out of trouble with what is either stupidity, psychic foresight or dumb luck. Yet, the further into the story Wilton gets, the more he believes in the efficacy of psychic powers. He believes that Cassady and the rest of the New Earth Army are capable of doing amazing things (although he is unsure what, exactly, is amazing about those things), and he also comes to believe that he, a mere reporter, is likewise psychically gifted.

But in the end, it is not their mental prowess that leads these men closer to their objective. Rather, it is their outlook, their way of life, that makes the difference. It turns out that working on their own selves—and yes, through yoga and prancing—is the first critical step towards ridding the world of violence.

The way that “The Men Who Stare at Goats” combines the grim nature of warfare with the lighthearted attitude of hippie culture is both funny and clever. However, that this movie is worth more than a grin is due to the work of George Clooney and Jeff Bridges (who plays the founder of the New Earth Army), who fill their respective roles with twice the genius of the characters they play.

With that said, “The Men Who Stare at Goats” is lacking in certain respects. The plot of this movie is far from riveting, and most of the characters lack the kind of depth and heart that could have made this movie great. Nonetheless, “The Men Who Stare at Goats” is at very least worthwhile. When all is said and done, the audience cannot help but think that the world could use more soldiers from the New Earth Army.

"Capitalism: A Love Story"

2009-10-04T09:30:00.001-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Capitalism is an evil,” says Michael Moore, “and you cannot regulate evil.”

Capitalism, an evil? We might have been inclined to go along with “Guns are evil,” “George Bush is evil,” and maybe even “Private healthcare is evil,” but surely we cannot so slander our beloved friend, capitalism. The economic superiority and moral uprightness of the free market is simply a given, right? Not so, says Michael Moore.

America and capitalism are what Forrest Gump might have said are “like peas and carrots”, and for this reason, “Capitalism: A Love Story”—a blistering criticism of all things free market—is Moore’s boldest and most ambitious project to date. It’s bold, but not great. It is emotionally stirring at times, but because capitalism is itself such an elusive concept for Michael Moore, his movie is unclear, unfocused, heavy on emotional conclusions, and light on damning premises.

“Capitalism: A Love Story” sputters out of the gates with several disjointed scenes and interviews that are only loosely connected. Moore interviews families being thrown from their homes and zooms in for shot after shot after shot of tear-stained faces and boarded-up shanties. Moore compares America to ancient Rome, drawing parallels between the social factors that led to Rome’s downfall and the milieu that now characterizes American society: too much greed; too great a divide between the rich and the poor.

While there is no tight working definition of ‘capitalism’ provided by Moore, there is the impression that ‘capitalism’ loosely refers to something like greed, the privilege of the few at the expense of the many, or maybe just meanness. As per usual, Moore attacks the system-“the Man” if you will—through a witty combination of emotional instances and conspiracy theories, all set to bouncing, ironic music.

For all of its initial flaws, “Capitalism: A Love Story” picks up some steam, interest, and credibility as Moore casts the financial elite as a corrupt aristocracy. He cleverly juxtaposes capitalism not with socialism or communism, but democracy. For Moore, the real tension is between two basic American ideals: liberty and equality. On the one hand, Americans are attracted to the personal liberty espoused by capitalism because they want to think that they have the freedom to make it big, to rise above their respective classes, to live the American dream. But on the other hand, there is also the moral compass of America that seeks to provide adequate conditions for all. We believe that everyone should have equal access to happiness and security.

We can’t have it both ways, claims Moore. We can’t obtain fabulous wealth for ourselves while at the same time providing adequate conditions for all. Thus, the tension between liberty and equality. Of course, Moore thinks that the so-called economic liberty provided by capitalism is, in reality, a sham. According to Moore, the reason we allow investment bankers and Wall Street whizzes to make it rich while hard working families are kicked to the curb is because we like the idea that someday we could be rich, on top of the heap. But this is an illusion, claims Moore, because the simple fact is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

For those viewers who are not already inclined to believe Moore’s conclusions, “Capitalism: A Love Story” will be nothing short of exasperating. As is usually the case, Moore’s premises are aimed at the gut, not the head. He uses public outrage to egg his audience on; he is the trumpeter of discontent, a sympathizer, a rabble-rouser. Moore tells people what they are mad at and then makes them madder at it, all without making a clear connection between their woe and his ill-defined object of hatred.

For those viewers who are inclined to believe Moore’s conclusions, “Capitalism: A Love Story” will no doubt be a moving rally cry. For those who have the feeling that the problem really is systemic, this film provides emotional punch. For these folks, Michael Moore is in their corner; he is their champion.

But whether you are a capitalist, socialist, anarchist or communist, it is clear that “Capitalism: A Love Story” could have been better. It could have been more penetrating and focused. It could have more coherently dealt with the connections between our current economic troubles and capitalism as an economic system. But that’s not really Michael Moore’s style, so take this movie for what it’s worth.

"Extract"

2009-10-04T09:28:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Mike Judge’s career is an ode to the workingman. It is an ode composed of a series of tales chronicling the exasperation of suburban life. “Office Space,” “King of the Hill,” and now “Extract”, all give a ridiculous but somehow accurate look at what is most trying about being average. “Extract” is an oddly realistic farce—a good illustration of what makes Judge’s movies so unique, and so funny.

Joel (Jason Bateman) may be the creator and owner of his own company, but at heart, Joel is a simple guy. He really wants what every simple guy wants: stability, honesty, and an occasional retreat from the doldrums. Joel’s ingenious and moderately successful extract manufacturing business testifies to the fact that all he really needs is his little corner of the world.

That is, until the combination of a dissatisfying home life, the fresh presence of a sexy temptress at work and the jarring influence of a freak accident at the extract factory moves Joel to shake things up a bit—to hatch a scheme. At the insistence of Joel’s hippie friend Dean (Ben Affleck), Joel decides to hire a male prostitute to seduce his wife so that he—Joel—can sleep with his new temp, Cindy (Mila Kunis), without feeling guilty. Unfortunately, the plan works too well. Brad (Dustin Milligan), the moronic gigolo, not only finds it easy to lure Joel’s wife into bed, he also finds it easy to turn this one-time job into a lingering affair.

Meanwhile, Joel discovers that Cindy is not the sweet, honest girl that he thought she was. Instead, she is an underhanded con artist/petty thief who is threatening to bring his entire company to its knees. Joel sees his entire world crumbling around him, and all because he tried to combat his boredom with Hollywood shenanigans. Joel realizes that he never really wanted what he thought he wanted. In other words, his old life, though at times exasperating, provided comfort and contentment. Joel discovers that he was meant to be a small-time extract maker, not James Bond.

In “Extract”, Mike Judge does what he does best: he simultaneously glorifies and mocks the life of the average Joe. He creates characters that are at once over-the-top and yet strikingly familiar. He puts these characters into situations that seem outrageous, but that every member of the audience has somehow experienced. Mike Judge is the master of working class exasperation.

In Judge’s stories, it is interesting to note that the worst possible thing a character can do is attempt to be something that they are not. Although the desirability of fleeing from suburbia is palpable in the beginning of these stories, the actual act of fleeing serves only as a catalyst for misery, and the process of redemption is always identical to the process of coming back to where things started. It seems to be a transformation of attitude, not necessarily a transformation of lifestyle, which is the solution to chronic boredom, according to Judge. The most valuable lesson Judge’s characters can learn is that they are nothing special; or, rather, it is that their simplicity is precisely what makes them special.

“Extract” is not just interesting; it’s funny too. Jason Bateman is perfect for the role of the punching bag, and is supported by a whole slew of outrageous but believable characters. In particular, David Koechner, who plays Bateman’s neighbor Nathan, is a side-splitting rendition of the kind of vapid acquaintance that just won’t leave you alone. It seems to me that Judge’s work is successful only insofar as he can create characters that are both remarkably unreasonable and remarkably believable. In “Extract”, there are plenty to choose from.

"The Hurt Locker"

2009-08-09T13:37:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Most military heroes make their name by deftly destroying the enemy or perhaps by pulling a fellow soldier out of harm’s way; they either create ruthless havoc or shield friends from the havoc of others. In the widely acclaimed “The Hurt Locker”, one man recklessly puts himself and his friends in harm way while mastering the art of quieting the havoc. Whether or not he is a hero, this man is the Shakespeare of bomb diffusers—bold, courageous, and breathtaking to behold.

U.S. Army Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) enters the Iraq War when his predecessor, Sergeant Matt Thompson (Guy Pearce), is killed while attempting to diffuse a bomb. James thus joins a bomb squad shaken by the loss of their beloved leader, and unfortunately, James’ brazen methodology and lackadaisical personality only serves to heighten the tensions of his new colleagues. Whereas the deceased Thompson observed every precaution and sweated the details, James slaps on the suit and strolls into harm’s way without a second thought. Thompson was visibly aware of the dangers that ended up killing him, while James seems no more concerned in fiddling with deadly bombs than he would be if he were fixing a carburetor.

James draws the ire of his equals but the praise of his superiors, the latter seeing James’ stunts as courageous and amusing. However, as time passes and countless bombs are successfully neutralized, even James’ nervous teammates cannot ignore the fact that James is a highly skilled bomb technician. He approaches a bomb with the same confidence that must have brought Rembrandt to the canvas or Mozart to the piano. He responds to the news that there is a bomb in the trunk of a car like one might respond to the news that there is a spider in the cupboard. “All right, I’ll take care of it,” he says. His confidence allows him to work quickly and efficiently, and his curiosity allows him to consider new possibilities and understand unheard of techniques employed by the enemy.

James’ teammates are counting down the days until they go home while James is playing a game. However, James’ seeming indifference to death does not keep him from feeling the pain of war. We see that he is compassionate, and is surprisingly affected by harm inflicted on others, particularly the innocent. The combination of his lack of care for the safety of himself and his extreme care for the safety of others make Sergeant James an ideal bomb diffuser. For James it is far better to save lives diffusing bombs than it is to take lives setting them off.

Each scene of “The Hurt Locker” is masterfully done. Director Kathryn Bigelow creates a realism that is both breathtakingly beautiful and devastatingly gruesome. This film is comprised of a succession of scenes that are mesmerizing and nerve-wracking; over two hours without a dull moment. What’s more, Jeremy Renner does a wonderful job as the implacable James.

And yet, this film lacks a strong narrative. While each scene is crafted well, the whole is not much more than the sum of its parts. There is no particular plot that the audience is meant to follow, meaning that we are dropped off rather near the place where we were picked up.

It certainly could be argued that this movie was a character study more than it was a war story, and what we learn of James’ character in the first half hour definitely provides the impetus for a great character study. But what is captivating about James is his peculiar indifference to death, and unfortunately what’s behind this odd character trait remains murky until the end. The first half of “The Hurt Locker”—the setup and rising action of the movie—is Oscar-worthy. But then the movie stalls, and in the end “The Hurt Locker” does not provide the climax or resolution worthy of its first half.

"Public Enemies"

2009-07-05T18:22:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Director Michael Mann is the man when it comes to details. Whether it be the resonant crack of a Tommy gun or the grainy haze of a midnight confrontation, Mann seems to go to the greatest of lengths to provide an audience with experiences that are somehow sharper, realer and more pungent than other shootout flicks. “Public Enemies”, Michael Mann’s latest crime drama, incorporates the presence—the glamour—of the icon that is bank robber John Dillinger while simultaneously bringing it down to dirty, gritty earth.

The John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) of this film is as ruthless and calculating as one would like to think, but his warmth and care for the common person makes Dillinger the right kind of criminal—like Danny Ocean or Thomas Crown, the kind of thief that you can root for. Dillinger will shove a fellow conspirator out of a moving car for slipping up, but refuses to take the pocket change from a citizen hoping to deposit his dollars and cents. Johnny Depp might not be the Dillinger we are used to, but who cares?

After perpetrating a slew of bank robberies and picaresque ruses, Dillinger inevitably pits himself against the concerted efforts of high-ranking U. S. officials, who promise to restore order by defeating “public enemy number one.” Chief amongst these government officials is Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), a straight-laced policeman whose methodical workmanship becomes famous for its ability to bring down the heavy hand of justice with booming resonance. It’s Dillinger versus Pervus, although this bout is more of a competitive sport for the former and an ominous battle for the latter.

Dillinger is used to dealing with inept local authorities, so Pervus’ persistent and well-funded attention becomes more than a bother before too long. Dillinger’s associates are dropping like flies, and the smirk that illuminates the face of public enemy number one is dimmed while Dillinger attempts to protect those around him. When the dark and beautiful Billie Frenchette (Marion Cotillard) enters the picture, Dillinger’s fun and games quickly become an earnest effort to protect the woman with whom he has fallen in love. Despite continual promises claiming that everything is going to be all right, Dillinger’s control is gradually wrenched from him by Pervus, the first lawman able to equal Dillinger’s cunning.

When it comes to crime dramas, it is surprising how much the details matter. For example, the mild popcorn popping sound of the machine guns wielded in James Bond films or other big budget action movies can easily create the sensation of being caught in a ludicrous arcade game. In contrast, each gunshot in Michael Mann movies, including “Public Enemies,” brings with it a loud and piercing resonance that demands the full attention of viewers; it disturbs the very air the audience breaths. If you could imagine sleeping through the gunfire in a movie, something isn’t right; like orange ketchup blood and robot sharks, weak gunfire reeks of phony bologna Hollywood effects. Anyone who has actually heard a gunshot knows that it is scary—it goes straight to the gut of a person, and shortly thereafter to at least two legs eager to fly away. An authentic gunshot may seem like a trifling detail, but this is precisely the kind of detail that can make or break a gangster movie. Mann’s scenes are real and jarring, and this effect ironically adds to the larger-than-life persona typically associated with depression-era outlaws like John Dillinger.

Johnny Depp’s performance is perfect for this movie, even if the character is a departure from other Dillinger portrayals. It strikes me as impossibly presumptuous and inevitably vain to worry too much about mimicking the true character of an historical figure so distorted by romance and propaganda. “Public Enemies” creates a Dillinger worth watching. The first half of the film lags a bit, but the second half delivers all that is to be expected from Mann—the intrigue of two geniuses on opposite sides of the law, the interest of the honorable villain, and yes, the jolt of Tommy guns piercing the still night air with strobing infernos erupting from their barrels.

“Public Enemies” is rated R for gangster violence and some language.

"Up"

2009-06-07T13:21:00.001-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Pixar is still batting a thousand, which is clearly a record—a statistic itself sufficient to put the production company in the hall of fame. But Pixar does not settle for mere hits; they insist on hitting it out of the ballpark, and “Up” is no exception. “Up” is funny, instructive, entertaining, cute, visually stunning, but most of all touching.
His humble stature and harsh, square jaw misleadingly give the impression that Carl Fredrickson (Edward Asner) is a petty, curmudgeonly old man locked away in his memories and bitterness. In fact, Fredrickson is the biggest dreamer of them all. He has a heart two sizes too big and an imagination that travels places his eyes will never meet.
“Up” begins as a younger, rounder Fredrickson sits on the edge of his seat in an old movie, his eyes wide, having his imagination insatiably piqued by Limburg-esque world explorer, Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer). Later that day, while buzzing along the sidewalk, hurdling ultra-perillous cracks in the pavement (with near the grace displayed by Muntz while zipping over the Andes) with leather helmet, goggles and all, Fredrickson finds his soul mate, his Ellie.
This buck-toothed, redheaded wonder possesses just as much love for adventure as Carl, and twice as much gusto for chasing it down. Little Carl Fredrickson’s wide eyes and gaping jaw are suddenly aimed at a new explorer—this one far more impressive than the last. Ellie jumps around the beaten walls of an abandoned house—her clubhouse—a mile-a-minute and a 10 words-per-second, while Carl silently stares in humbled awe. Though they have yet to see the age of 10, Carl and Ellie begin to plan their lives together. Ellie forces Carl to cross-his-heart-hope-to-die promise that he will take her to Paradise Falls someday. Carl willingly complies, and Ellie whips out a scrapbook, where she draws their clubhouse perched atop Paradise Falls. Ellie then apportions half the book for the adventures to be had once they get there.
As the years pass, Carl and Ellie travel through life together, never quite becoming the globetrotters once imagined, but always finding excitement and adventure in everyday life. The couple buys and renovates the house that was once their clubhouse. They save for their trip to Paradise Falls, but regularly empty their savings for life’s necessities. Just as his promise is about to be fulfilled, Carl is left without his Ellie. Fredrickson fiercely clings to his memories—to his house, pictures, and Ellie’s old sitting chair. It is not until his house is threatened by greedy developers that Fredrickson is shaken from his reverie. Instead of relenting, the 78-year-old Fredrickson ties thousands and thousands of balloons to his house and flies away. Destination: Paradise Falls.
Little does Fredrickson know that Russell (Jordan Nagai), a plump boy scout, was on the porch of the upward-bound house when it took off. The grumpy Mr. Fredrickson intends to drop Russell off on a tall skyscraper, but a storm pushes them off course. After a violent ruckus, Fredrickson awakens to find Russell guiding the house over the jungles of South America. Fredrickson manages to land the house mere miles from the sharp cliffs of Paradise Falls. The aging explorer is not about to give up now, so he walks his floating house, alongside Russell and a couple of pesky friends he meets on the way, toward the falls. Yet, the journey is not easy, as Fredrickson must overcome the harsh terrain and the wiles of an old icon in order to attain his dream. Fredrickson is stubborn and persistent, but he must learn to soften his heart in order to embody the adventurer’s spirit instilled in him by Ellie.
“Up” is the most touching of the Pixar films, and Carl Fredrickson is perhaps one of Pixar’s most endearing characters. This movie will make you cry as much as it will make you laugh and smile. Just when this movie appears to hit a lull, and the masterful dialogue seems to turn cliché and preachy, a short sequence of scenes strikes with a lightning bolt, an emotional epiphany, both potent and profound. Last year, “WALL-E” showed us the dangers of complacency—the decay of lives not lived. This year, “Up” shows us that life can be lived and adventure can be sought at any location, in any circumstance; that true explorers do not need to find exotic creatures or timeless artifacts. Carl Fredrickson is a simple man with few needs, but he embodies what he always admired in others by being willing to take risks and budge from his nostalgic rut in order to write the next chapter in the book he dreamt of as a child.

"Star Trek"

2009-05-10T22:01:00.001-07:00

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

In the late 1960s, “Star Trek” went boldly where no TV series had gone before. In the ensuing decades, “The Next Generation,” “Voyager,” “Deep Space Nine,” and several other Star Trek series, spin-offs and movies came onto the scene, some more boldly than others, all hoping to capture some of the magic and wonder so uniquely introduced by the likes of Captain Kirk and Professor Spock. Now, over 40 years later, director J. J. Abrams has brought both Trekkies and the sci-fi laity back to the beginning—actually, back before the beginning.

When the movie begins—before it all began—George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth) is realizing his potential at just the wrong moment. Under attack from an unknown vessel, Kirk takes over command of his own starship while the previous captain attempts to negotiate with a hostile force. Things take a turn for the worse just minutes after Kirk’s promotion, and the valiant Kirk goes down with the ship in order to protect his crew and newborn son.

George is therefore physically absent from his son’s (James Tiberius Kirk) childhood, though James does seem to channel the reckless bravado that made his father a legend. With some mild cajoling, James (Chris Pine) decides to enlist in the Starfleet Academy to follow in his father’s footsteps. James is cocky, bold, perhaps even foolhardy, but he is also brilliant. He knows how to lead better than anyone, but he also refuses to abide by rules or conventions. The future Captain James T. Kirk of Star Trek lore flies by the seat of his pants, relying on his gut to call the shots. This portrait contrasts with that of Spock (Zachary Quinto), a human/Vulcan mix who has embraced the Vulcan allegiance to impeccable logic. Spock is cool and in control, and at least appears to analyze life-threatening situations as if they were engendered in a petri dish.

Spock and James are quickly thrust into the thick of a mysterious and nefarious interaction with the same unidentified vessel that ended the life of James’ father. Just as before, the captain of the Starship—now the newly launched USS Starship Enterprise—boards the enemy vessel to negotiate a ceasefire with an enemy named Nero (Eric Bana). In actuality, Nero is implacable, as he only desires revenge for a past (or future, depending upon how you look at it) misunderstanding. After capturing the captain of the Enterprise, Nero destroys one planet and sets course to destroy Earth.

James and Spock are left at the helm of the Enterprise, but disagreements over the correct course of action complicate the cohesiveness of Nero’s opposition, thus threatening the fate of earth. In order to save earth and restore peace to the universe, James and Spock must learn to work together; they must balance each other’s contrasting dispositions. As the story unfolds, the familiar pieces of the Star Trek puzzle are put into place, yielding an inchoate yet formidable generation of science fiction heroes.

There is never a dull moment in the latest “Star Trek.” From beginning to end, this film flies at maximum warp, and yet somehow stays on track—that is, it does not get lost somewhere in outer space. The movie is fantastical and even cheesy at times, but as four decades of “Star Trek” has shown, these things often go hand-in-hand, with exhilarating results. However, while this movie is fantastical, it is not that fantastical. In other words, “Star Trek” is true to its galactic setting, but avoids most of the truly bizarre, otherworldly scenarios long associated with the series. This movie purchases action at the price of geeky science fiction. Of course, this could be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, depending upon whom you talk to. This year’s “Star Trek” is sure to have broader, non-Trekkie, appeal, but lacks some of the thought-provoking counterfactual scenarios that were once the hallmark of the original and subsequent series.

“Star Trek” is entertaining and worth watching. However, it strikes me that the original and ultimate appeal of the series is in its ability to provoke thought about the way things could have been, or the way things are in a far distant galaxy. Perhaps unlike any other science fiction endeavor, “Star Trek” has inspired wonder over scientific endeavor, human nature, and the boundaries of the universe. The most recent “Star Trek” is light on wonder, but hefty when it comes to action and adventure.

"Adventureland"

2009-04-05T16:52:00.001-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Adventureland” is a well-executed, perfectly idyllic summer camp romance. Its style is as distinctive as it is attractive. Both funny and touching, “Adventureland” is without a doubt one of the best movies of the year.

James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) is a geeky-cool kid fresh out of college in the mid-1980s. Like most of his friends, James has enjoyed a life of relative comfort and privilege—his biggest challenge being the opposite sex. James’ future is falling into place, as he prepares to conquer graduate school and then the world.

Much to his chagrin, James’ bubble is burst when his plans for a European vacation and enrollment at Columbia graduate school are put on hold with his parents’ announcement that they can no longer afford James’ lifestyle. Instead of bouncing around Europe with wine in one hand and Hemmingway in the other, James is forced to do something he has never done before: enter the job market.

With no work experience and no leads, James plight becomes nightmarish as his options dwindle. Instead of working at some swanky corporation reflective of his intelligence, James must settle for a job at Adventureland, a hokey, cheesy local carnival. James mans the games section, meting out cheap stuffed animals to obnoxious ring tossers while listening to an endless play list of bad pop music.

Adjustment is no easy task for James. During his very first day on the job, James is robbed of a giant, stuffed panda bear. Luckily he is rescued by Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart), a fellow worker at Adventureland. Em quickly catches James’ eye while she shows him the ropes. The work remains demeaning, but James finds a cast of close friends like Em who share both James’ interests and his attitudes. This booze-drinking, pot-smoking crowd floats through life shaking their fists at adults with ironic gestures and savvy smiles. Life at Adventureland becomes the perfect summer fling with a healthy mix of groans and grins. Solidarity springs from misery.

It is not long before James falls in love with Em, who is dark, cool and perhaps even more ironic in her disposition than James. The pair is absolutely perfect for each other, and their friendship evolves naturally into a carefree romance. But while Adventureland provides an alternate universe perfect for nurturing the budding love, Em is troubled by stress at home and elsewhere. She feels trapped in a home full of phonies and hopelessly caught up in a lingering relationship with a married man.

James and Em are intoxicating characters and easy to root for. Amidst the waning summer days, the kind of drama that begs to be overcome threatens their relationship and the unity of the gang formed in the plywood booths of Adventureland. This cotton candy hell becomes the stomping ground for this pack of smart aleck twenty-somethings united by their miserable vocation and their youthful disdain for all things boring.

“Adventureland” is wonderfully written and acted. Jesse Eisenberg is enjoyably clever and Kristen Stewart flawlessly portrays the elusive summer beauty. This film celebrates youth without glorifying immaturity … well, for the most part. “Adventureland” clearly differs from superficial summer romps while also avoiding taking itself too seriously. It beautifully, almost painfully, captures that golden time in life just before responsibility becomes a mainstay. This deeply nostalgic movie has a distinctive retro style perfect for portraying the summers when bad decisions were not so bad; with characters who care about the right things yet aren’t afraid to act their age.

In addition to Eisenberg and Stewart, Matt Bush, Martin Starr and Bill Hader are hilarious and enriching. The subtle and smart humor of this movie fits its style. The characters are goofy but have good heads on their shoulders. They are screw-ups but destined for success. Thus, it is easy to love this cast. With summer just a few weeks away, “Adventureland” is the perfect way to celebrate the season.

"Watchmen"

2009-03-08T13:23:00.001-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Rich, complex novels often make for terrible films. The subtle detail that turns pages can zoom by at 24 frames per second. Unfortunately, “Watchmen” is one of those movies. Instead of wowing the audience with the action and drama expected from a superhero flick, this film meanders and lags. “Watchmen” is a prelude; a labyrinth plot that never becomes a story.

The time is the mid-1980s. The place is New York City. President Richard Nixon is surviving his fifth term in the White House, trying to avoid the annihilation of the human race threatened by an impending nuclear war with Russia. The Watchmen are a band of retired crime fighters, once credited with keeping America safe, but forced out of service by a no-mask law instituted by Nixon. For the most part, these heroes lack extraordinary superpowers; they are talented, but mere citizens with socially conscious parents. There is the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), for example, who is a brash, satirical cowboy who, in his day, blurred the line between hero and villain. Or there is the Night Owl (Patrick Wilson), who is a batmanesque avenger with a soft heart but hard fists.

New York is becoming a haven for criminals and America is heading for nuclear war, but these vigilantes have nothing to do but drink beer and reminisce about the good old days. But when The Comedian is suddenly and viciously murdered, the Watchmen’s interest is aroused. While the impulse to act remains, the retired avengers have grown comfortable and complacent in their normal, everyday lives. Yet, just when the ever-mounting threat of perpetual violence rises to a crescendo, the heroes of yore decide to don the masks once again in the name of justice.

The plot thickens and the superheroes divide their time between cleaning up the streets, discovering the identity of the culprit behind the Comedian’s murder, and preventing a nuclear holocaust. As is to be expected with a mass of apparently unsolvable superhero problems, the issues are inextricably linked. Now back in action, the Watchmen must search their souls to determine their true place in the world, and to decide where their loyalties lie. While each character has his or her own impulses, each must weigh the value of peace on the one hand, and justice on the other. Are the true heroes those who make the world a better place by any means, or those who do the right thing no matter how much bloodshed ensues?

“Watchmen” is two hours and 43 minutes long. The first two hours is a preamble to a story that never develops. The next 20 minutes are a chaotic but stimulating distraction, and the final 20 minutes … well, who cares? Amid the constellation of political jabs and intellectual quips, there are rather few eye-catching moments and even fewer interesting developments. The feigned intellect of the otherworldly Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) (who sighs, “If only you experienced time as I do”) and the ridiculous, plastic hair of Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) are merely obnoxious stabs at creating flamboyant superstars. That is, these superheroes are not campy; they are just downright cheesy.

The graphic novel upon which this movie is based is a classic, but the movie is highly forgettable. If the so-called intrigue contained in each character was developed individually into movies called “Dr. Manhattan” or “Ozymandias”, there might be something worth seeing. That is, divide and conquer may have been a better strategy for director Zack Snyder. At it is, “Watchmen” is a slapdash mishmash of nonsense. What’s worse, it is almost three hours worth of nonsense.

"The Wrestler"

2009-02-08T07:11:00.001-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Method acting is a technique whereby an actor or actress fully embraces the lifestyle, emotions and characteristics of the person being portrayed on screen. Whether or not this was the technique previously employed by the estranged Mickey Rourke, the process of getting inside the mind of Randy “The Ram” Robinson—a washed-up, beat-up, screwed-up old wrestler—may have been more self-reflective than self-emptying. Rourke and the Ram attempt to simultaneously resurrect their careers in “The Wrestler,” a powerfully emotional and subtly profound look at aging, redemption and salvation.

In the world of professional wrestling—the kind with folding chairs and body slams, not the kind with headgear and grappling—the Ram was once a god. He was the people’s champion, defeating such frightening and evil opponents as the “Ayatollah.” In the minds of his fans, the Ram defended the ring, the American homeland and all that is sacred.

However, with age and experience come aches, pains and a restless constituency. Once on top of the world, the Ram is relegated to high school performances and backroom shows, testing his patience, wallet and ego. Whereas before the Ram’s successes appeared to outweigh his failures, he is now confronted with all the mistakes he made during those years; mistakes for which he is now accountable. Among them is his forgotten and neglected daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood), who wants nothing to do with her father after years of missed birthdays.

The Ram—now merely ‘Randy’—clings to the comfort and advice of an aging stripper named Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), with whom Randy has fallen in love. However, Cassidy has her own world of hurt and responsibility to reckon with—a world analogous to Randy’s—and is reluctant to team up with her long-time, bruised and broken customer.

Amidst the social chaos, Randy suffers a life-threatening and career-ending heart attack, leaving him more impotent and broken than before. As Randy struggles to regain the affection of his daughter and the love of Cassidy, he fights the dangerous desire to return to the world of wrestling—the only audience suitable for Randy’s talents.

Although the apparent drama in “The Wrestler” is in no short supply, perhaps the most interesting thread of the film is covert religious imagery that underpins the entire film. The audience is starkly introduced to this theme when, after Randy tells Cassidy about his injuries, she flatly quotes the Bible: “He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.” An injury to his side and a tattoo of Jesus on his back further establish the presence of this allegory between Christ and the “sacrificial Ram.”

Yet, this is no Sunday school allegory. The Ram is hardly perfect, and although he has a strong sense of responsibility and the need to make everything right, the Ram constantly comes up short. He is unable to provide for the needs of those closest to him, and he is never present when his presence is most needed. Instead, the Ram’s whole life and career is nothing more than a childish sham, where a certain ideology is praised and worshiped without reflection. Although it seems as if the Ram’s tenure is ending, the tired wrestler declares to his fans, “The only one that's going to tell me when I'm through doing my thing is you people here.” In response, an arena full of followers applauds with religious zeal.

Religion aside, it is not difficult to empathize with the Ram. Although he is worshipped in certain settings, Randy is deeply human. He wants to do what is right and even provide something greater to those who love him, but he is simply incapable of keeping up with the past and future. Although his responsibilities multiply, Randy turns to the only world that appreciates him.

This movie is raw and gritty. Rourke certainly rises to the demands of this performance and Tomei adds a good deal to the film. “The Wrestler” has something for everyone: streams of interpersonal drama as well as deeper undercurrents.

“The Wrestler” is rated R for violence, sexuality/nudity, language and some drug use.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

2009-01-10T06:59:00.001-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Both mysterious and tragic, Benjamin Button was born old and died
young. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," starring Brad Pitt and
Cate Blanchett, apes the dancing historical plot of "Forrest Gump" but
lacks nearly all of Gump's heart, sympathy and profundity. Star power
could not rescue this mundane three-hour marathon, making Pitt's
caked-on makeup the most interesting aspect of the film.

The unfortunate Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) was born in New Orleans
amidst cries of victory after the close of World War I. Like a normal
baby, Button possessed a meager stature and fragile frame. However,
the weakness shrouding Button's body was not the softness of youth but
instead was the worn muscles and calcified bones of old age. Instead
of smooth, delicate skin, Button's baby face looked more like an old
catcher's mitt.

With his mother dead and his father unwilling to raise him, Button is
appropriately abandoned on the doorstep of an old folks' home. The
owner, Mrs. Baker (Faune Chambers), and the aging residents of the
home take to the abnormal child as if he were one of their own.
Although the residents do not realize Button is younger than most of
their grandchildren, those who come into contact with him cannot help
but recognize that something is different. Instead of growing older
with time, Button ages in reverse. Instead of taking his first steps
away from a crib or stroller, he walks away from a wheelchair. Instead
of training wheels, Button uses canes to steady himself.

With the body of an old man but the curiosity of a young boy, Button
sets out to see the world. He finds his way aboard a tug boat, and
lets the currents take him where they may. He goes to Russia and
England, and even plays a role in World War II. Along the way he meets
strange women and has new experiences. He takes his first drink when
he looks to be 70 and is with a woman for the first time only shortly
thereafter.

Amidst these salty adventures, Button longs for Daisy (Cate
Blanchett), a girl he knew and loved while growing up in New Orleans.
Button knows Daisy as a young girl and Daisy knows Button as an old
man, yet the pair keeps in touch while they each chart their own
paths. Eventually Button and Daisy find their way back to each other
and fall in love. For several years (but merely ten or so minutes of
the film), Button and Daisy embark upon their adventures together with
rigorous passion, seemingly unaware of the implications of time.

Both Button and Daisy age, move inevitably through time, but in
opposite directions. While Daisy deals with wrinkles and joint pain,
Button gets stronger, sharper, but further away from the woman he
loves. When the time-accosted lovers learn they are to have a child,
Button must decide to stay or leave. Although Button and Daisy meet in
the middle for a few beautiful years, Benjamin Button ages just like
any other person. The true tragedy is not the in inevitability of
change, but in the peculiar current that continually pushes Button
further and further away from those he loves.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is intriguing at first, but
whatever scaffolding is meant to buttress the audience's curiosity is
none too interesting. Just like Forrest Gump, Benjamin Button is an
out-of-place Southerner who experiences only brief and often painful
encounters with the woman he loves while he is simultaneously
embarking on great historical adventures. But Gump is loving, kind,
loyal—unknowingly remarkable. Gump fits seamlessly into history and
the audience gets it. Button, on the other hand, is flat and static.
His character does not change—neither matures nor becomes more
immature—and the most vivacity we see from him is while he rides a
motorcycle. Instead of showing the passage of time through the
characters' relationship to historical events, "The Curious Case of
Benjamin Button" pointlessly augments its scope with a slapdash
assortment of events that go nowhere and have no significance to the
story.

This film has interest built in, and some may argue that Button's
humanity is realistic and thus a virtue of the film. However, it seems
to me that "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is remarkably
unremarkable.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is rated PG-13 for brief war
violence, sexual content, language and smoking.

"Milk"

2009-01-10T06:53:00.001-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“My name is Harvey Milk, and I am here to recruit you.” At a time when passionate disagreement over ideology continues to rend many parts of the country, “Milk” is a stirring, thought-provoking and worthy film.

“Milk” is the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly homosexual man to be elected to major office in America. When this story begins, Milk is a simple and private man looking for the same kind of happiness enjoyed by many Americans. Milk runs away to San Francisco with his lover (James Franco) in order to live a simple, fulfilling life. However, when Milk and Smith decide to open up a camera supply store they are confronted with the harsh reality of prejudice. In response to the lack of acceptance experienced by those wishing to put Milk and Smith out of business, Milk decides to fight back.

The once reserved businessman organizes the gay population of San Francisco to form a powerful network of mutual support, ironically leading to financial demise of those who once promised to deliver a similar fate to Milk. With the homosexual community behind him, Milk gradually becomes more active and outspoken about the injustices experienced by the gay community.

Much to the chagrin of the pacifistic Smith, Milk decides to run for local supervisor. After several defeats and methodological refinements, Milk is finally elected to office. Yet, for Milk, winning is not what is most important. What is most important is getting the word out, making an impression, and raising questions and doubts in the minds of others. Milk discovers that it was not he who was running for office; it was a cause that was really on the ballot.

Once in office, Milk continues to fight for the equal treatment for homosexuals. Milk faces fierce prejudice in addition to the normal political wrenching, the latter facilitated by fellow supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin). Milk makes gay rights a national issue by combating the likes of Anita Bryant and Senator John Briggs, who are both campaigning to repeal laws that make it illegal to discriminate in matters of business and education on the basis of sexual orientation. Bryant and Briggs cite the law of God as reason to root out and eliminate homosexuality in America. Just as two massive currents pour inevitably onward toward each other, Briggs and Milk face off in an iconic battle over what it means to say “all men are created equal.”

As with many stories, the story of Harvey Milk is not so much about the beginning and the end as it is about the in-between. Milk, once a shy and guarded businessman, became the voice of a passionate movement for equality. Milk, looking for peace, love and happiness, was struck down in his prime. These are the givens of the story—the aspects known to the audience from the outset. What is not necessarily known, and what really matters, is the humanity behind the movement. Milk may have been running on an issue, but it is Milk the man who brings the issue to the hearts and minds of the nation. For better or worse, “Milk” blurs the line between a person and an ideology.

Sean Penn is positively dazzling in this film—he is the undeniable highlight. No other actor or actress lags too far behind, but Penn’s performance will bring tears to your eyes just as much as it will bring ideas to your mind. Writer Dustin Lance Black and director Gus van Sant do a fine job developing what it means to be normal and accepted by comparing Milk’s private life with his public life; his desire for peace with his desire for change. The supposed tragic flaw of the hero in this tale is precisely what makes him happy and gives him hope. Milk chooses to hope and fight rather than be told who to be.

This movie is touching, funny, and raises issues worth grappling with. The score and cadence of plot progression contribute keep the viewer involved and interested. “Milk” reminds us that there are real people behind even the most polarizing of issues, and although wise people differ ideologically, the wisest find a way to love and respect each other.

“Milk” is rated R for language, some sexual content and brief violence.

--Originally Printing in Coastal View News--

"Quantum of Solace"

2009-01-10T06:49:00.000-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Innumerable vanquished villains, countless wild and romantic love affairs, decades of swanky cinema and just one man behind it all: James Bond. Bond has gotten tougher, meaner and still cleverer in the past few years, with the help of the new blonde Bond, Daniel Craig. With Craig came more substance and a reason to suspend disbelief. “Quantum of Solace” cashes in some of the substance but none of the style accrued in “Casino Royale” for more guns, explosions, sweat and blood. “Quantum of Solace” is plenty entertaining, but well shy of inspiring.

In “Quantum of Solace” the once imperturbable James Bond (Daniel Craig) is fighting not only for God, queen and country, but also for revenge. Still beleaguered by questions and regrets after having lost Vesper Lynd (Eva Green)—the one woman for whom Bond was willing to sacrifice everything—the only stable aspect of Bond’s return to MI6 is his ruthless ability. Bond has a duty to follow orders, but a desire to avenge his loss. On the one hand is a covert organization called “Quantum” implicated in the plot that resulted in the death of Lynd. On the other hand is Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a very wealthy, very shrewd and very well-connected environmentalist businessman.

When Bond travels to Haiti to investigate Quantum, he runs across the scheming and nefarious Greene. Bond discovers that Greene is attempting to grab economic power in South America by toppling the current government and replacing it with the corrupt General Madrano (Joaquin Cosio). The only thing Greene appears to be seeking in return is the deed to an arid, useless portion of South American desert. Of course, unbeknownst to the general, the land is rich with valuable oil and water. Bond smells a rat and ignores M’s (Judi Dench) insistence that he stay on task. While investigating Greene, Bond is drawn into a relationship with Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who is attempting to exact her own revenge against general Medrano (Joaquin Cosio) for killing her family in cold blood.

The plot thickens as more is discovered about Greene’s intentions, and as the American government is drawn into a business relationship with Greene. Bond, who always plays by his own rules, becomes increasingly unpopular as he dodges bullets from eco-terrorists, corrupt Americans, and the fed-up MI6 leadership. The seemingly disparate plots begin to tangle and cohere, and Bond is left to sort it all out.

“Quantum of Solace” begins and ends with reference to “Casino Royale,” and in the meantime fails to create its own, powerful narrative. All films in a series connect in various ways to prequels and sequels, but all good films in a series also tell their own unique portion of the tale in a coherent manner. Unfortunately the story behind “Quantum of Solace” is somehow lost in the shuffle. It is up for debate whether the true currency of James Bond films is plot or action, brains or brawn. “Casino Royale” revived the series with an exceptionally brawny Daniel Craig, but perhaps even more importantly, with a clever script. In “Quantum of Solace” Craig is brawnier than ever, but at the expense of the intellectual intrigue that caught the eye of many viewers when Craig first came on. The result is a very exciting and entertaining film that lacks substance. Given the outrageously bad Bond films of the past two decades, it may be fair to note that beggars can’t be choosers. “Quantum of Solace” is still one of the better Bond films in recent decades.

“Quantum of Solace” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some sexual content.

"Role Models"

2008-11-13T18:26:00.000-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Sean William Scott and Paul Rudd wed coarseness with wit as they attempt to transform from immature hooligans into thoughtful albeit court-ordered philanthropists in “Role Models.” A warranted but frustrating comeuppance turns out well for the pair by eliciting both reparation and moral development. A hackneyed storyline is the true misdemeanor here, but this crime is atoned for by inconsistent yet witty laughs.

Danny Donahue (Paul Rudd) is a self-aware, underachieving spokesman for Minotaur energy drink, who begrudgingly visits schools to urge kids to drink the semi-toxic energy drink instead of doing drugs. Wheeler (Seann William Scott) is Danny’s immature sidekick dressed in a Minotaur costume who, unlike Danny, has no desire to pursue a more meaningful career or lifestyle. Born out of ubiquitous frustration, it is Danny’s immature behavior, not Wheeler’s, that ends up costing Danny not only his longtime girlfriend Beth (Elizabeth Banks), but also both Danny and Wheeler their jobs and standing with the law.

As the result of a day of Danny’s reckless behavior, both he and Wheeler are sentenced to 150 hours of community service at a big brother agency called Sturdy Wings. However, jail time begins to look rather rosy next to the combination of an insane supervisor (Jane Lynch) and two of the most difficult kids to mentor. A difficult situation quickly becomes a nightmare. Wheeler is forced to contend with hell-raiser extraordinaire, Ronnie (Bobb’e Thompson), and Danny is assigned the geeky, foam-sword-wielding Auggie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse).

As is to be expected, both Danny and Wheeler are inept and uninterested at first, but the challenges they are forced to face bring about soul searching and a behavioral turnaround. Wheeler learns that there is more to life than skirt chasing and drinking, while Danny learns to appreciate other people for who they are instead of expecting everyone to see the world as he does. Four characters, all in a uniquely bad place in life, come together to both accept and change who they are. It is when each abandon their own well-being in favor of the group that each begins to thrive.

If “Role Models” is not completely unoriginal, this film at least gives the appearance of being built on an oft-used Hollywood assembly line. Six writers penned “Role Models” (rarely a very good thing), which means that this comedy was not so much focused on unity of voice or a strong narrative as much as it was focused on one-liners and situational humor. The result is a noticeably slapped-together set of scenes.

However, most moviegoers do not go to a comedy, especially one like “Role Models,” for a powerful story as much as they go for a good laugh. If the story is great, so much the better, but as long as the film is non-stop funny, all is well. Unfortunately it is not so easy to partition laughs from a storyline, especially when situational humor requires building steam to get moving. Danny and Wheeler are meant to be humorously stuck between a rock and a hard place, but this aspect of the film is rarely funny. What are funny are the jokes and one-liners, particularly the ones delivered by Paul Rudd and Jane Lynch. Rudd’s sarcasm and wit are believable and charming, even if they are painful to witness. Seann William Scott draws a few laughs, but not many.

“Role Models” is better than most other comedies similarly conceived, but certainly not a classic. Expect to laugh out loud, but don’t expect to remember it the next day.

“Role Models” is rated R for crude and sexual content, strong language and nudity.

"Quarantine"

2008-10-30T18:28:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

If come Oct. 31, you see a dark, deserted corridor covered in dust and cobwebs with creepy noises emanating from deep within, you are most likely in one of two places: a haunted house or in a theater watching a horror flick. True to form, “Quarantine” will get your heart pumping and blood curdling. Although the plot makes hardly any sense, and the aura falls short of terrifying, this film’s horrific images and shocking jump scenes are true to the Halloween spirit.

Reporter Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter) and her cameraman Scott Percival (Steve Harris) gear up for a special segment on the Los Angeles Fire Department. When the bell rings and firefighters fly down their pole, the aspiring Vidal is thrilled to be part of some real action, even if it turns out to be nothing more than rescuing a kitten from a tree. But when they arrive at an apartment complex curiously designed like a haunted mansion, it quickly becomes clear that this is no routine call.

As the camera keeps rolling, a crazed resident who is foaming at the mouth attacks one of the firefighters. Panic ensues and tensions dial up when, on their way out of the house to get their injured friend to a hospital, police close the doors and lock the group inside the complex. No explanation is given.

Eventually it becomes clear that the group is being quarantined from the rest of the city because it is suspected that a deadly virus is loose in the building. A resident who also happens to be a veterinarian recognizes the symptoms as resembling rabies, but with one twist: instead of taking hours or days for symptoms to show up, bitten or infected victims become rabid in just minutes.

A battle between the infected and uninfected develops, turning a compassionate group of people who desire the well being of everyone into a desperate army fighting against what looks like a growing cohort of zombies. The police will not let anyone out of the building, at least not while anyone is alive. Those who remain uninfected struggle to find a way out before they too fall victim to their former compatriots.

Just like the spider-webbed, zombie-ridden halls of a haunted house, “Quarantine” was not crafted to make much sense; it was crafted to frighten an audience. Viewers may wonder, for example, why the police insisted on closing off the building when the virus is only transmitted through blood or saliva, instead of isolating the lone victim and thereby saving the rest of the group.

But logic is no reason to watch a horror film. When it comes to Halloween movies, each has plenty of blood and gore, but for a horror flick to leave a real impression, a few things need to be accomplished. First, there needs to be a bit of mystery. It is important for the audience to be kept guessing, whether that is done with shaky cameras, dark corridors or mysterious occurrences. Second, there needs to be a real sense of isolation or hopelessness. In other words, an audience needs to feel like the actors and actresses are alone in the world and completely vulnerable. Finally, for a horror movie to be truly horrific, there needs to be a sense of grandeur in the enemy. This grandeur could be something quasi-ideological as in psycho movies, something paranormal as in exorcist or alien movies, or something apocalyptic as in virus movies or doomsday flicks.

Most of the mystery was taken out of “Quarantine” once the group knew that something like rabies was infecting certain members. One would think that isolation was a given, seeing as how that is pretty much the definition of quarantine, however, the fact that the desperate group was separated from the rest of the world only by a thin layer of concrete or stucco diminished the sense of loneliness. Finally, the sense of grandeur only really picks up at the end of “Quarantine.” What is left is a startling and disturbing set of shots captured on an eerie reel of film. This movie is grotesque, and succeeds in transporting the audience into a deep mood of anxiety over imagining taking a step into that horrible place.

All in all, “Quarantine” is not all that great of a movie, but will do the job if what you are looking for this Halloween is a few decent screams.

"Choke"

2008-10-02T18:29:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

It's rare that a deity and a scoundrel are one and the same. Victor Mancini (Sam Rockwell) is not sure where the needle on his self-assessment barometer lies, but he has a strong feeling that it is not somewhere in the middle; either that or the barometer is broken. “Choke”—an off-color comedy based off a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, author or “Fight Club”—is an eccentric look at a man incapable of being satisfied. Although amusing and interesting, this film is likely to leave audiences, like the protagonist, just short of fulfilled.

Victor is a sex addict, and an ornery one at that. He utilizes any setting—from rehabilitation classes to the colonial pasture where he works as a reenactment tour guide—to sate his insatiable impulses. However, Victor’s life does not revolve solely around lewd and superficial behavior. He also scams the wealthy by pretending to choke on his meal while in high-end restaurants; a move that Victor finds endears him to potential financial backers.

To be fair, Victor does have a nobler side. He spends his money, both earned and scammed, to help pay for his mother Ida (Anjelica Huston) to be hospitalized in an expensive treatment center for individuals suffering from dementia. Because Ida does not recognize her son, Victor assumes a variety of roles as a way to interact with his mother in the hospital.

The story takes a turn when Ida hints at the identity of Victor’s father, a bit of information Victor is desperate to learn about. With the help of his sex-addict friend Denny (Brad William Henke) and a tempting nurse named Paige (Kelly Macdonald), Victor seeks to find out about his past, all the while flashing back to his chaotic childhood.

As the story unfolds and more information about Victor’s past is revealed, the details of his parentage take on Biblical proportions. Still convinced that he is the scum of the earth, Victor has reason to doubt claims that he may be of divine origin.

Victor is used to being the lying cheat, and thus incorporates his character flaws into what he expects from the world. He expects to be treated as the liar, and the audience does too—after all, he deserves it, right? As it turns out, this deeply flawed person is quite a bit more honest than those around him. The juxtapositions created by ironies of this sort cause viewers to question the legitimacy of distinctions like ‘sinner’ versus ‘saint’, ‘helper’ versus ‘helpless’. Although Victor’s character is tossed from the gutter to the clouds and back again, Victor finds himself somewhere in between, or perhaps not on the scale at all.

“Choke” is as odd as it is lewd. The many-layered story is more coherent beneath the surface than it is at face value. The humor is quirky, smart and delivered well. Although “Choke” does not come close to the merits of “Fight Club” it has its own charm and might be worth watching if you have the patience and stomach to see the story play out. This movie had more potential than the final product delivered, but perhaps not a great deal more. Some of the more outlandish plot developments, which carried a minor thematic load, were probably too cliché, oddly enough, to be worthwhile. The sum total is only slightly more worthwhile.

“Choke” is rated R for strong sexual content, nudity and language.

"Burn After Reading"

2008-09-18T18:30:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Joel and Ethan Coen may suffer from what could be called Cinematic Bipolar Disorder—an ability more than an ailment, really, that entails alternatively creating dark dramas and then bizarre comedies. After proving themselves masters of edge-of-your-seat thrills with Oscar-dominating film “No Country for Old Men,” the Coen brothers shifted minds and set out to make a most frustratingly absurd farce named “Burn After Reading”. Few have proven adept at drawing both the laughers and screamers, but gems like “O Brother, Where Art Though” and “The Big Lebowski” illustrate the fact that the Coen brothers possesses what few Oscar-winning directors can claim to possess: a sense of humor. Alas, although the wit and quirk coloring the latest Cohen brothers foray into comedy is bound to stick with an audience predisposed to odd humor, “Burn After Reading” is far from attaining the classic status expected from the Coens.

“Burn After Reading” is a mishmash of eccentric but real characters all hanging on for dear life as their worlds spin out of control. Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is an ex-CIA analyst looking for respect, and his feisty wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is not about to give it to him; nor to her love affair Harry Pfarrar (George Clooney), who is an affable womanizer looking for a good time and a great jogging trail. Meanwhile, gym employee Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) wants a slew of cosmetic surgeries to match her physique with the name of her gym (Hard Bodies). Litzke enlists the help of her ebullient co-worker Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) to help her on her way to greater sex appeal.

After seemingly picking a bunch of characters out of hat, Joel and Ethan Coen set to crafting a comedy of errors. In an attempt to make his life worthwhile, the stuck-up Osborne Cox decides to ignore his pestering wife’s criticisms and write a memoir. Little does he know that his lack of lucrative ambition has caused his wife to prepare for a divorce by laying hands on his financial information, and perhaps accidentally, his memoir. The disk containing this information is mistakenly left at Hard Bodies, and when the contents are examined by the ever-excitable Chad Feldheimer, who thinks the data is top-secret CIA information, he joins forces with Litzke to blackmail the unsuspecting Cox. Litzke wants the cash for a tummy tuck and breast implants, while the enthusiastic but dim Feldheimer simply wants to play a game of cops and robbers.

Although the data is hardly CIA classified, Cox treats his personal information as if it were for his eyes only. Litzke and Feldheimer are over their heads, which only complicates matters furthers, and the fact that divorce and bankruptcy loom on more than one character’s horizon causes patience to ebb and rash behavior to flow. Already moving steadily from order to disorder, this absurd tale becomes more outlandish by the minute. Cox wants respect and his disk, but is having an equally difficult time attaining either. Feldheimer is having a good time, but Litzke is not getting any closer to her artificially constructed goals. This movie shows that sometimes when you get all the right ingredients working in just the right proportions at just the right temperature, a perfect fiasco ensues.

“Burn After Reading” pits the wits of elite minds against the unpredictability of banal scheming. It is both painful and amusing to watch so many people make so many poor choices at the same time. In a farce, character development is sacrificed for situational development. The Coen brothers enlisted a phenomenal cast to bring life to the story, but their talents may have been better implemented in more amusing circumstances.

For all the bizarre plot turns, “Burn After Reading” is well crafted. It is well crafted, but not all that enjoyable. Most of the potentially laugh-out-loud moments in this movie elicit a chuckle, and thus the audience is bound to become restless while the perfect storm takes too long to develop. Yet although “Burn After Reading” might be a letdown for fans of the Coen brothers, it is easy to admire a sharply built and fast moving cyclone of human drama.

“Burn After Reading” is rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence.

"Traitor"

2008-09-04T18:31:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Samir Horn is the new international man of mystery. Unfortunately, that is not a good thing. What is mysterious in this action movie has nothing to do with espionage or intrigue. What is mysterious is why a peaceful, intelligent, God-fearing man would undertake a violent, utilitarian mission brainstormed by a single cowboy in the United States government … all in the name of peace? The tagline for “Traitor,” starring Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce, reads, “The truth is complicated.” The truth is that the point of this movie gets complicated, but never irons itself out.

Samir Horn (Cheadle) is a high-tech arms dealer for terrorist groups in the Middle East. This devout Muslim makes bombs and fuses that help end innocent, civilian lives. But when the local police and the Americans find out about a deal Horn is set to make, they raid the party. Horn is arrested, beaten and imprisoned. He refuses a deal offered by a sharp FBI agent named Roy Clayton (Pearce), instead choosing to display solidarity with his captured comrades.

Lucky for Horn, when his terrorist buddies manage to escape from prison, they decide to take him along for the ride. Horn is immediately immersed in a terrorist underworld that involves the recruitment and deployment of suicide bombers to civilian targets. Horn enthusiastically joins in the festivities, offering his own technological expertise in order to make bombings more efficient.

Meanwhile, agent Clayton is hot on Horn’s trail. He and his team discover mountains of evidence linking Horn to numerous bombings throughout the world. Clayton is thorough and efficient, but also thoughtful and understanding. Whereas others in his posse associate all Muslims with terrorism, Clayton beleives every ideology has its heroes and its villains. Thus, Clayton is more willing to believe that something more than meets the eye is going on.

Indeed, beneath the bombings and violence is a story that makes the whole affair quite a bit more complicated. Before thousands are killed and millions are thrown into terror, the characters in this movie have to find a way to look below the surface, work together and end a threat.

Although this premise had promise, “Traitor” ends up flopping at the end. None of the questions the audience needs answered—particularly in terms of motivation—are even remotely satisfied. The intelligence of Cheadle’s character conflicts with the foolhardy risks he is willing to take with his life and the lives of others. The uniformity of the evidence mounting in front of Pearce’s by-the-book character conflicts with how he ends up seeking resolution. Thus, it is neither easy to like nor to understand any of the main characters. Some interesting religious undercurrents were present, but they were not developed into anything meaningful.

All in all, watching this movie is a bit like being privy to a hotshot teenager who tries to show off by racing his parents’ car, only to crash the thing into a ditch. Even if he would have won the race, you probably wouldn’t have admired him. Sound acting performances were delivered by Cheadle and Pearce, but this movie with a head full of steam spun out well before the closing credits.

“Traitor” is rated PG-13 for intense violence sequences, thematic material and brief language.

"Tropic Thunder"

2008-08-21T18:32:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

After 15 minutes of previews, moviegoers rushing to see “Tropic Thunder” have to sit through a few more coming attractions. First, a commercial for an energy drink called “Booty Sweat.” Second in the lineup is a preview for the most stereotypical action movie one could ever imagine … and then the audience begins to catch on—this is part of the movie. Yet audiences who need a bit more than slapstick comedy to crack a smile will continue to be confused throughout the film. Forget a war between nations, or bickering amongst agents, actors and moguls; the real conflict in “Tropic Thunder” is its own style. Is it a clever satire or is it a silly spoof? Splitting hairs, one might think, but the ironic voice in this star-studded movie is confused.

Three big-time actors, each dominating their respective genre (action, comedy and drama), are brought together for what is billed as “the greatest war movie ever made.” Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is the perennial action star, with guns and biceps ablaze. Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a slapstick master who makes a living off farting while dressed in various fat suits. Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is the Oscar winner, winning the hearts of audiences with powerfully emotional performances. With such a cast, how could anything go wrong?

Yet, as the actors fail to gel with each other and as the enormous budget gets stretched, production company executives begin to put the squeeze on the movie’s rookie director (Steve Coogan). Feeling the pressure, the director decides to throw the cast out into the middle of a Vietnamese jungle in an attempt to motivate the spoiled stars. At first the actors feel the mixed emotions of leaving their posh hotels while at the same time being a part of something fresh and exciting. However, as time goes on and the war blazes, the actors begin to realize that they are no longer on the set of a movie. Instead, they have found their way onto the territory of a dangerous Vietnamese drug ring, placing them in real-life peril.

These phony actors are forced to look below their superficial exteriors to find a way to live what they have only pretended to do for so long. One of the actors is captured and put in serious danger, and the others take it upon themselves to bring him back. Meanwhile, agents and executives back home are mostly unaware of what is happening. With stumbling hiccups, these Hollywood stars attempt to become real heroes.

Good actors can always deliver good lines, and there are certainly some laugh-out-loud moments produced by Jack Black, Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder.” Yet, what began as a witty commentary on stereotypical movies ended up being more like a spoof in the mold of “Hot Shots” or “Naked Gun.” The movie these actors are supposed to be creating is ridiculous in itself, but the story that unfolds once the cameras stop rolling is just as void of merit. Thus, it is difficult to place this movie in its cinematic space. If there were a more consistent motif being portrayed, it might be easier to laugh at the circumstances, but as it is, “Tropic Thunder” is a sprawling story punctuated by moments of hilarity. Those who liked “Hot Shots,” “Naked Gun” or even “Dogma” are sure to like this movie, but those who yawned at the aforementioned flicks might lack the patience for “Tropic Thunder.”

“Tropic Thunder” is rated R for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material.

"The Dark Knight"

2008-07-21T18:56:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

For numerous reasons, both auspicious and not, “The Dark Knight” has been burdened with anticipation—forced to outdo any film in the Batman series and perhaps even in the superhero genre. The unique atmosphere surrounding this film has only born questions to further inflate expectations. Could the late Heath Ledger win an Oscar? Could this be the best superhero movie of all time? If box office numbers decided these questions, the golden statue would have been engraved two weeks ago. But putting aside questions, expectations, hopes, genre, history and tragedies, “The Dark Knight” lived up to itself, and surpassed itself, as a truly great movie.

In “The Dark Knight,” Batman (Christian Bale) is attempting to subdue Gotham’s crime, but the riffraff of criminality mixed with complications associated with his own imitators keep the superhero distracted and disillusioned. It is Batman’s belief that what the city needs is a police infrastructure, not a vigilante warrior. At just the right moment, Harvey Dent (Aaaron Eckhart) becomes Gotham’s new district attorney, swearing to be tough on crime and pledging to pull no punches. The presence of this impressive new addition to the city’s crime-fighting force is immediately felt—scores of big-time criminals are put behind bars.

Batman, who was feeling stretched thin, is pleased with what he is seeing from Dent and looks forward to stepping down as Gotham’s crime-fighting hero. However, a new kind of criminal comes on the scene. Calling himself the Joker (Heath Ledger), this scarred, painted, greasy-haired maniac is true to his name, perpetrating his crimes for the mere pleasure of it all. At first, Batman and Dent downplay the importance of the Joker, but when the latter ups the ante by throwing the city into chaos, Batman is called back into action.

The Joker is far more sophisticated than the average criminal, or even the average villain. He is clever, diabolical and at least two steps ahead of everyone, including Batman. What is more disturbing about the Joker is that he is not interested in money, revenge or any sensible objective. He claims to want nothing more than to have Batman unmasked, but in the end all he wants is to make a game out of killing and chaos. Make no mistake, the Joker is refined and ideological, but paradoxically, in a nihilistic sort of way. He has a purpose and a plan—a way he wants things to unfold—while at the same time not ultimately caring, even for his own life. He wants to show that “everything burns,” and what better way to do that than to send a city of 30 million inhabitants into anarchy?

The mayhem brought on by the Joker causes Batman, Dent, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bruce Wayne’s perennial love and Dent’s current girlfriend) and the police department to re-evaluate their ideology, their values and what they are willing to do to win the war against the Joker. The truly terrifying fact is that defeating the Joker does not come down to putting him behind bars or killing him, for the Joker would gladly submit himself to either, so long as the images of the heroes and shining faces of the city go down with him.

This film begins as a fairly commonplace, action-packed superhero movie, but by the end, it transformed itself into a thought-provoking, profound social commentary. In particular, the concepts evoked by the Joker are startling and sinister. He is a true Nietzschean villain: he believes in nothing, and so determines to make his life a work of art. He unmasks all the hypocrisy and false ideology typical of any organized society—hoping to cause its very structure to crumble.

Heath Ledger does a truly remarkable job as the Joker, and the rest of the cast is fairly good. Christian Bale is good, but not as good as he could be or has been in other roles. Aaron Eckhart was just O.K., as was Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gary Oldman as Lt. James Gordon was perhaps second only to Heath Ledger in quality of performance.

This movie is fast, thrilling and dramatic. It keeps the audience on the edge of their seats and causes them to feel the ups and downs of the plot as if they were personally involved in the story. With superhero movies currently all the rage, “The Dark Knight” is the only one that stands above the rest—the only superhero movie that surpasses the genre.

“The Dark Knight” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace.

"Mongol"

2008-07-17T18:33:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Do not scorn a weak cub; he may become a brutal tiger.” Most individuals have heard the name Genghis Kahn, but few have heard of Temudjin. Likewise, and true to the Mongolian proverb which prefaces “Mongol,” most individuals know the protagonist of this Best Foreign Film nominee as a brutal tiger, not the weak cub who was once scorned. Although this story of Genghis Kahn’s rise to power is surely a fictional portrayal, “Mongol” is a genuine cultural experience, both charming and alarming.

Temudjin is a proud and disciplined young boy whose father is a Kahn, the leader of his clan. Temudjin’s future seems certain: he will choose a wife and rule the clan in prosperity. However, when the Temudjin’s father suddenly dies on the way home from a trip to help find his son a wife, the headstrong boy’s secure future dies as well. Instead of becoming the young Kahn, Temudjin is immersed in a dangerous environment more suitable for experienced warriors. Temudjin is driven from his home and left for dead. Yet with the aid of an unexpected friend, the rightful Kahn returns, but only to be captured and made a slave.

The next few decades of Temudjin’s life are a struggle to stay alive, to stay free and to grab what is his. He fights his enemies as well as his friends, making sure to form plenty of grudges along the way. In this Mongolian culture, everything is transitory. What is yours is that which you are strong enough to take. Whether it is horses or a wife, property and relationships trade hands as often as territories in a game of Risk—often as if settled by a roll of the dice. At one and the same time, Temudjin learns to both embrace and scorn this way of life. He believes his wife and his horses are his own, yet he often shows a willingness to play the power struggle game, and in the process endangers that which he holds precious. A very fine line between greatness and great failure develops, and if the audience did not know how the story turned out, they might have wondered whether Temudjin was destined to be a king or a slave.

This film only reveals glimpses of Temudjin as Genghis Kahn, the king of all the kings; a man who expresses his desire to bring law to Mongolians, even if he has to kill half of them. Herein lies a central ideological conflict that remains unsettled. Was Genghis Kahn’s legacy positive because he brought order to mayhem, or was it negative because he was part of the mayhem—perhaps the most brutal part? Which is worse, anarchy or dictatorship? These unresolved conflicts are intentional and important. The tagline for this movie, “Greatness comes to those who take it,” appropriately portrays Temudjin, with all his moral complication, as a great man for his willful persistence and disciplined focus.

In addition to being a unique ideological experience, the setting and production of this film is sharp and beautiful. Not since “The Lord of the Rings” has scenery in a movie been this appealing. However, “Mongol” also had its flaws. Those who come to see Genghis Kahn the warrior will be mostly disappointed. This movie is slow and sometimes sprawling, punctuated with a few fast-paced battle scenes. The film’s transitory feel is critical to its themes, but at times this sensation causes detachment from the audience and hurts the logical flow of the story. “Mongol” will always be interesting, but you may have to be in the right mood to enjoy it.

“Mongol” is rated R for sequences of bloody warfare.

"WALL-E"

2008-07-03T18:35:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Whether it is toys, bugs or monsters; fish, cars or rats, Pixar Studios has turned the unconscious conscious by cleverly animating the inanimate. In WALL-E, Pixar took the next step in humanization, turning a post-apocalyptic dystopia into a charming adventure with a moral punch. WALL-E gives audiences everything they have reason to expect from Pixar, and even a bit more.

WALL-E is a garbage man, trash compactor and architect rolled into one rusted-over, sentimental machine. He wakes up in the morning (reboots), grabs a nice, hot dose of solar energy, and then sets off to work with his plastic lunch pale and cockroach friend. His job, his directive, is to clean up the trash heap that is Earth. He chugs across cities of garbage, picks a few morsels up, tosses them into his stomach compartment and mashes the trash into a neat little cube, which he then stacks into enormous, refuse skyscrapers. WALL-E also has a personal life, which is time spent cataloging insignificant treasures from the rubbish heaps while longing for humanesque contact.

The lonely world of WALL-E is rocked when a giant rocket lands into his life, right on top of his life. Out comes Eve, a shiny, spectacular and grossly intimidating babe of a robot. While Eve is buzzing around in search of her directive, WALL-E is a puppy dog, following her all over, hoping to get noticed by this dreamy cyborg while managing to look like a banged-up old klutz. Eventually Eve takes notice, finds WALL-E’s plain and unassuming nature charming, and a relationship develops.

Yet just when things are going perfectly for WALL-E, Eve unconsciously clams up and the rocket returns, snatching her back into space. But WALL-E is not about to let the best thing that ever happened to him just fly off. He clings to the side of the rocket ship and flies across the universe, ending up at an even larger space vessel. WALL-E, a cantankerous old simpleton of a robot, is introduced to a comfort-driven, automated society as if sprung from the pages of a Huxley novel. Grossly overweight humans ride around on flying chairs with video screens plastered in front of them. Everything is streamlined and automatic, making life outside the video screen unnecessary and uncomfortable. WALL-E has far more personality—seems like much less of an automaton—than these vapid Homo sapiens.

WALL-E never loses sight of his primary mission—reunification with Eve—but along the way plays an integral role in another mission. By being his same, old, outdated self, WALL-E opens the eyes of the bloated passengers and helps them take their first steps toward liberation from self-indulgent complacence. All he wanted was a companion, but WALL-E shows the depth of his character once he realizes that the universe’s problems are larger than his own.

The employees of Pixar Studios are masters of the human simile: they have a knack for making any ordinary object seem like a real person replete with idiosyncratic quirks and foibles. It is intrinsically amusing to see a rusty trash compacter buzz around like a human, as if specific human needs and desires could be directly translated into the robot world. Instead of a cup of coffee, for example, an energizing zap of solar power gets WALL-E going each morning.

Beyond the animation and the simile, Pixar knows how to tell a great story and WALL-E is no exception. But even beyond the storyline, WALL-E has a message that is more specific and more profound than the average moral truisms expressed in most animated features. The true accomplishment of this film is that it garners the perspective and meaning of the best dystopia stories without losing the Pixar charm.

Comparing Pixar’s nine films is like comparing the SAT scores of Harvard students, but if a comparison had to be done, WALL-E would be somewhere in the middle, perhaps above Cars and A Bug’s Life, but below Finding Nemo and Toy Story. WALL-E might not be quite as endearing or constantly engaging as some of the others, but its strength of message bumps it up a few notches. Like all Pixar films, this is definitely a movie to see again and again.

"The Happening"

2008-06-19T18:36:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Equipped with mountains of talent, writer/director M. Night Shyamalan unfortunately gave his blood-thirsty critics reason to lick their lips when he crafted, “The Happening”: a promising, titillating concept turned sour by poorly executed acting or directing or writing, or maybe a combination of all three.

Droves of people stop dead in their tracks, and then set forth on the most expedient path toward death. “The Happening” opens with a jolt more jarring than the average Shyamalan movie. Movies such as “Signs” or “The Village” each appeared to be of the horror genre when judged by the previews, but turned out to be sci-fi dramas laden with a few jump scenes. Not in keeping with the historic trickery, “The Happening” is truly horrifying.

Something is happening, but no one has the slightest clue why. What is known is that a toxin is changing the brain’s chemistry, altering the human survival instinct, and in fact reversing the effect, causing everyone exposed to the toxin to commit suicide. Scientists, analysts and reporters cycle through countless theories: from terrorist attacks to leaks in nuclear power plants to government testing, but the explanations fall out of favor more quickly than bodies falling from high-rises. The event appears to be relegated to the Northeast United States, where at first large populations are inflicted and then smaller and smaller groups are driven to suicide. The madness is unnerving. Lifeless bodies jump from roofs, small groups of strangers share a dead police officer’s gun and one person lies down in front of a large, churning lawnmower.

Enter Elliot Moore (Mark Walberg), a high school science teacher with atypical accessibility and dedication to his work. When Elliot hears of the event, he, his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), his friend Julian (John Leguizamo) and Julian’s daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez) set off together to try and evade the inexplicable. Meanwhile, Elliot attempts to apply the scientific method to gather observations, form a hypothesis, design an experiment…etc., and Julian, a math teacher, applies his trade in statistics to make decisions for the group. However, without much scientific progress, Elliot is forced to face his parting exhortation to his students: although science will always find a story to tell, theories are theories and some things may not ultimately be scientifically explainable. In other words, a coherent explanation of how something could happen is not necessarily the same thing as explaining how it did happen.

Elliot continues to theorize and wonder as the borders of mayhem begin to close in on him, his family and his friends. Some theories seem serviceable, but although the scientific method often guides the group’s action, it leaves them without the hope and security usually associated with cold, hard facts. It is ultimately a crack-pot, conspiracy-theorizing, hot dog-loving old man that puts them on to the truth: that plants are emitting the toxin as a self-defense mechanism. A billboard sign for model homes ironically reading “You deserve this,” offers a thematic harbinger for an environmentalist message. Elliot and his group press on, driven by the very instinct to survive that is absent in those around them.

For the sake of transparency, it is worth mentioning that Shyamalan has an ongoing feud with mainstream film critics. The critics think he has lost the magic he managed to create in “The Sixth Sense” and “Signs,” becoming increasingly whacky and arcane, but ultimately inane. Shyamalan and his fans, on the other hand, brashly claim that the critics simply don’t get it—or refuse to get it. I must admit that I am an entrenched member of the latter group. I have no clue whether other critics just don’t get the ubiquitous symbolism and profound themes, but it is my view that Shyamalan is a nearly matchless master of such devices.

In “The Happening,” Shyamalan questions the scope of scientific inquiry, while at the same time exhorting the audience to shape up before it is too late—with the latter theme being slightly more mundane than the former. Elliot tells his students that there are things science may not be able to explain, but will attempt to explain anyway. As the story unfolds, we are given a somewhat plausible example of an event that scientists and intellectuals fumble and bumble with, yet they do not fail to emphatically assert their own theories as the only logical explanation. The cultural scientific caricature at work in this film is right on the money. Amidst the unending promises and claims of modern science, this is certainly something to talk about.

However, the chic grandeur that typically accompanies Shyamalan’s movies is utterly lacking in “The Happening.” The dialogue is cheesy and awkward throughout most of the film. All in all, for those going into the movie with their eyes open to the deeper themes, it will be like having a meaningful conversation with someone who uses poor grammar and smells funny. Take what you can get from this movie. It is shocking and profound, but with far more potential than was realized.

“The Happening” is rates R for violent and disturbing images.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"

2008-06-05T18:37:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

After almost two decades of waiting, Harrison Ford shakes the dust off his iconic, brown leather hat; grabs his whip, and takes viewers for one more archaeological romp in “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” The nostalgia, adventure, mystery and Ford’s toothy grin make outlandish action and wild plot developments beyond palatable: the kind of implausibility that dooms other action movies makes Indy oh-so-tasty.

Well into retirement from his grail-finding days, Jones is introduced to the audience in the latest Indiana Jones movies as a captive, held by Soviets who wish to use his expertise to find a top-secret item buried in a military warehouse at Area 51. After heroically escaping the mess, Dr. Jones’ already-piqued interest needs little bolstering to to be pulled right into the middle of the conflict. He is finally nabbed by the storyline full force when he is enlisted by a brash, young greaser named Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf), whose mother has been kidnapped by the Soviets (Mutt and his mother turn out to also have a special connection with Jones.).

Hot on the trail, Jones discovers that the Russians are after the mythical Crystal Skull, which is a highly-magnetic piece of alien anatomy that supposedly provides the bearer with all sorts of special psychological powers. Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, depending on how you look at it, Indiana had intimate knowledge of the folklore surrounding the skull, but had given this mystery up as pure fiction. Now with a new lead, Indiana and Mutt make their way to South America, where a former colleague, professor “Ox” Oxley (John Hurt), had been searching for the skull amongst ancient ruins. Great perils beset the good guys as they have to vie for the skull and its rightful usage against angry Russian psychologist Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), natives who wish to protect their home and bizarre and dangerous magic.

“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” quickly embraces the worrisome queries of the audience: Is Ford too old? Yes, Ford is old, but his old-guy, pickup-basketball finesse takes the place of the youthful exuberance present in the first three movies. Is the fourth movie just more of the same? Yes, it is more of the same, but in a good way. This Indiana Jones movie has much of the intriguing archaeological mystique and crazy action that filled the first three movies, but with a plot that is unique enough to distinguish it from the others. Indy might be doing the same thing he has always done, and against the same kind of enemies, but God bless him for that. Although the impossible escapes are worth a chuckle, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” might not have tapped into the nostalgic wonderment of the iconic series unless Indy avoided an atomic blast by jumping inside a refrigerator or unless Mutt and Irina engaged in an inter-vehicle swordfight.

The thrills are impossible, yet also imaginable. As with previous Indiana Jones movies, science and logic meet mystery and the possibility of something beyond what we think we know about our world. The series makes you open up your eyes and wonder, even if just a little.

If anything, the ending of the movie stretches the imagination and good spirits of the audience too much, but the most important thing is that the latest Indiana Jones leaves viewers feeling satisfied. As the Indiana Jones theme music fills the theater at the end of the showing, fans of the first three movies will surely have an extra bounce in their step.

“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is rated PG-13 for adventure violence and scary images.

"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian"

2008-05-22T18:38:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Like a younger brother walking into high school for the first time—with teachers and coaches expecting a younger version of the older sibling—High King Peter continues to be overshadowed by Aragorn and Frodo in the latest installment of C.S. Lewis’ series: “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.” Despite the movie’s adequacy, it is hard to avoid seeing this series as “Lord of the Rings-Light” or “Lord of the Rings-Junior.”

Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy Pevensie are just getting used to life back in England after a rip-roaring adventure in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” with each child coping with the absence of magic in a difference way. Peter (William Moseley), who misses the mystical kingdom he once ruled, is restless to return. Susan (Anna Popplewell), on the other hand, has begun to accept the normal life she now leads. Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) are somewhere in-between.

Just as Peter begins to express his complete frustration, the four siblings are returned to Narnia in a windstorm. However, after a moment of jubilation, the family learns that their beloved kingdom is in trouble. In their absence, and without the help of their beloved lion Aslan (Liam Neeson), the human race has become corrupt—killing off all that is magical and innocent.

The lone dissenter in this tragedy is Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), rightful heir to the human throne. However, Caspian’s uncle, Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), desires the throne and is aiming to rid the kingdom of his nephew and only competitor. While on the run, Caspian blows on an ancient horn that summons the “kings and queens of old” (the Pevensie children)—thus resulting in the Pevensie’s wind-swept transportation to Narnia.

Now accompanied by two kings, two queens and a prince, the once-hidden centaurs, dwarfs, skunks and miscellaneous creatures rally together to stage a battle against Miraz and his terrible kingdom. High King Peter goes about battle preparations, but he lacks faith in the absent Aslan—preferring to do things his own way. What results is a bungled attack on the enemy’s castle, dozens of dead friends and a bickering cast of young heroes.

When at their lowest—with the enemy now closing in on their dilapidated sanctuary—the group finally decides to send Lucy to find Aslan. Meanwhile, a challenge and a battle ensue, pitting the wits, minds and hearts of the noble Prince Caspian and High King Peter against the twisted Miraz.

One can imagine C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, good friends living in England in the mid-1900s, sitting down next to each other to write a story. It is tough to tell who was copying off whose paper, considering “The Chronicles of Narnia” and “The Lord of the Rings” were written at about the same time. Although both Lewis and Tolkien were well-versed in mythology, so many details and images in “The Chronicles of Narnia” are strikingly similar to “The Lord of the Rings,” that a viewer cannot help but think the two authors were sharing ideas. The religious imagery, the mythical creatures, the fighting trees—although these are different stories, the cast and setting seem to be the same.

Because it is impossible to avoid comparing Lewis’ and Tolkien’s stories, and because “The Lord of the Rings” was so wonderful, “The Chronicles of Narnia” is going to be worse off. However, the latest Narnia flick is good in its own right and tons of fun. “The Chronicles of Narnia” is directed at a younger audience, as evidenced by children in the lead, simpler concepts and religious symbolism that is more transparent. The acting is slightly sub-par on the whole (mostly due to the casting of Ben Barnes as Prince Caspian), but about average for a children’s movie. Yet the true shortcoming of “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” is that the movie does nothing new or original to set it apart. It is not enough to remind viewers that the story may have been original in the 1950s.

It really is the climate that is going to hurt this movie, because the story is rich in meaning and the movie is exciting. Children will the love the movie and adults will like it too, as long as they have not watched “The Lord of the Rings” recently.

“The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” is rated PG for epic battle action and violence.

"Iron Man"

2008-05-15T18:39:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Robert Downey Jr. seems about as likely a superhero as Tobey Maguire, and Iron Man is about as well-known and popular as Plastic Man. Yet Downey’s performance in the latest superhero thriller, “Iron Man,” is smoother and more convincing than any number of Batmen or Supermen, and the man of iron ends up being more formidable than the man of steel.

Tony Stark (Robery Downey Jr.) is half suave-playboy, half engineering-genius. He is also very rich and successful, having inherited his father’s engineering company, Stark Industries, which specializes in weapons manufacturing (a lucrative industry indeed). Due to Tony’s unparalleled technical abilities, the company thrives under his control. However, while demonstrating some of his latest military technology in the Middle East, Stark’s convoy is attacked and Stark is captured by thuggish, cave-dwelling terrorists.

Having obtained shrapnel wounds during the skirmish, Stark is lucky enough to be treated by a doctor who implants a mechanical device powered by a car battery into his chest to keep the shrapnel from entering his heart, thus keeping him alive. But shrapnel is the least of his worries, as the terrorists command Stark to build them a copy of his latest weapon, the Jerusalem missile. It is compliance or death. The brash and noble Stark feigns obedience while instead building a method of escape—and so Iron Man is born!

After kicking tons of butt, Stark returns to his California home and announces his intention to quit making weapons. This announcement is to the chagrin of the Stark family’s long-time business partner, Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges), and to the surprise of Stark’s long-time beautiful assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). While both seem initially supportive, only one is genuine. With the help of Potts, Stark puts his genius to work in developing a more sophisticated version of Iron Man, while Stone struggles to undo Stark’s position in the company.

The new Iron Man kicks even more butt, and as the design improves, greater evils arise and Stark’s nobility and sense of responsibility kick into overdrive. Stark is forced to discover just how impenetrable his armor really is.

Most people do not go into a superhero movie expecting to see the next Best Picture winner. They do not expect a unique plotline or a profound message. If the average moviegoer is astute, such a person will have noticed that every superhero movie is pretty much the same: an unlikely individual, flawed but genuinely noble, is thrust into a position of responsibility that is at once exciting and frightening. Along the way, this superhero will be confronted with an archenemy—a person that was once a close friend and personal ally. Love will be involved; most assuredly including another unlikely person; perhaps a person that has been in the superhero’s life for a while, and who the audience hopes (and secretly knows) will be “the one.” There will be moments of excitement followed by moments of deep despair and doubt. But ultimately, as if from the ashes, the superhero will triumph.

These facts are rarely short of given. Therefore, because nearly every superhero movie follows the same plotline, what makes such a film stand out is more-or-less unique to the genre. For a superhero movie to be successful the acting has to be good (nothing short of inspirational will do); the action scenes and explosions have to be fast-paced, exciting and somewhat unique, and the screenplay must be smooth, witty and often funny.

“Iron Man” certainly does not transcend the standard superhero storyline, but it is successful because the acting is good, the action is fun and the writing is slick. Robert Downey Jr. is sharp, quick and sassy—characteristics that are strengths for Downey and well-designed in the screenplay. Jeff Bridges’ voice alone makes him well cast as a villain, and Gwyneth Paltrow is nearly always golden.

There are many moments of implausibility in “Iron Man,” but so long as the implausibility is coherent and consistent, which is it is for the most part in this movie, it is the glue that holds all superhero movies together. If you have no patience for this type of movie, don’t waste your time, but if you loved Spiderman, Superman and Batman, “Iron Man” is a worthy superhero flick.

“Iron Man” is rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.

"The Forbidden Kingdom"

2008-05-01T18:40:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

At first glance, it might be hard to tell what is forbidden in the newly-released Jackie Chan/Jet Li action thriller, “The Forbidden Kingdom.” Is it an ancient Chinese realm? A mystical world of magic? As it turns out, ‘forbidden’ is referring to the prospects of a good script or good acting; to an original storyline or quality editing—all of which must have been forbidden long before Jackie Chan and Jet Li signed on to do this movie. Even if enamored with high-flying kung foo and acrobatic sword-fighting, “The Forbidden Kingdom” falls well short of what it was aspiring to accomplish: anything worthwhile.

Jason Tripitikas (Michael Angarano) is a kung foo-crazed teenager from Boston whose secret obsession with old combat movies is satisfied by buying bootlegged movies at a shop owned by an old Chinese man. On his way home from the shop one day, Jason is confronted by a gang of teenage ruffians who criticize his taste in film. After some pushing and shoving, the gang forces Jason to take them to the old man’s shop so that they can rob him. Jason obliges, and in the uproar of theft, the shop owner is shot. As he crumbles to the ground, the shop owner, who does not seem to be peeved with Jason for letting burglars into his shop, hands the teenager an old staff from the back of his shop and cryptically instructs Jason to take the staff to its rightful owner. Jason then runs away while being chased by the murderous hooligans. When cornered, the staff does its magic and transports him to ancient China.

Jason understandably feels overmatched in a world run by a repressive and cruel dictatorship and vigilante kung foo masters. Luckily he finds Lu Yan (Jackie Chan) who is a drunken immortal—he can live forever so long as he consumes copious amounts of alcohol. Lu Yan informs Jason that he is carrying a mythical staff once owned by the Monkey King, a loveable rascal who cannot be defeated in battle. According to a prophecy, the Monkey King lost his staff when an evil warlord tricked him and turned him to stone, and now the Monkey King is waiting for the foretold person to bring it to him.

Although Jason manages to augment his warrior clan by adding a vengeful dart-thrower named Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) and a testy monk (Jet Li), he continues to sense his own inadequacy, and thus despairs. But with the help of his friends, Jason begins to learn kung foo and takes to is mission of returning the staff to the Monkey King. As the clan makes their way to the home of the warlord, many dangers beset them, and when they actually arrive to challenge the warlord, the odds against their survival seems insurmountable.

Everyone has a few movies that they remember loving as a child, but when they return to the movie as an adult, they realize just how cheesy it is. It most likely seems cheesy now because movies have become more sophisticated and what were once original stories have been redone so many times that they seem nothing short of hackneyed. “The Forbidden Kingdom” is this movie without the aid of 20 years of reverie to bolster its sentimental value. Whereas “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and “Hero” can boast beautiful choreography and cinematography, a genuine and coherent sense of eastern perspective, and quality acting, “The Last Kingdom” offers none of these. The fighting scenes would be entertaining if they were not encased in cheesy dialogue, hollowed-out eastern philosophy and one predictable plot twist after another. Indeed, a way to redeem this movie might be to see if you can find each and every line, each and every interaction, from another movie.

Although mixing east and west in this style is almost always a recipe for disaster and a sure-fire way to make both cultures seem less authentic, the particularly shoddy performance of Michael Angarano as Jason Tripitikas puts this movie beyond repair. A combination of his over-the-top facial contortions and his neat triangle of pubescent chest hair are enough to make you choke on your popcorn without him even saying a word. Yet, perhaps it would have still been better for the movie if he played a mute teenager from South Boston.

"The Counterfeiters"

2008-04-10T18:40:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“The Counterfeiters” is a moral dilemma. This Austrian film, winner of Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, asks: At what point is it wrong to save one’s own life? When all available options have severe moral consequences, how does one weigh the choices at hand?

“The Counterfeiters” (“Die Fälscher”) is the story of Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics), a Russian Jew living in Germany in the late 1930s, who made a fortune by becoming the best counterfeiter of documents and currency in the world. But when Sorowitsch is caught and arrested for this crime, he is sent to a Nazi concentration camp where he is left to fight for his life.

However, Sorowitsch’s artistic skills ensure his survival, and he finds himself being favored by SS leaders within the camps he and his less fortunate comrades inhabit. Sorowitsch manages to sell himself as a useful commodity, and his interaction with Sturmbannführer Friedrich Herzog (Devid Striesow) lands him in a relatively comfortable and secure job within a camp. The only problem is that the job requires him to forge the British pound and the American dollar in an attempt to undermine the economies of the Nazi opposition. Sorowitsch is no longer simply asked to go along with relatively innocuous Nazi projects, but instead, is ordered to knowingly sabotage the Allied war effort, thus indirectly leading to the continued suffering and death of the Jewish people.

Sorowitsch accepts the Faustian bargain, explaining to one questioning compatriot that “One adapts, or dies!” Adapts, but adapts at what price? As the story develops, Sorowitsch becomes more and more aware of the consequences of his decisions, while at the same time realizing that the results of any alternative are equally tragic.

Sorowitsch’s character is foiled by Adolf Burger (August Diehl), a young and brash prisoner who actively and openly sabotages the counterfeiting team’s efforts to make the dollar. As the story plays out, all the men involved struggle with the instinctive desire to stay alive, but become more and more aware of the potential implications of their work. Although they are all in it together, some wish to favor their own fortunes and some the fortune of their ideals, but Sorowitsch, the leader of the group, is clearly torn. He attempts to strike some middle ground, but finds himself incapable.

Something hollow ensues. Mirroring the words of Soren Kierkegaard, who once said, “Do it or do not do it—you will regret both,” the ideals of both Sorowitsch and his friends are not practicable in a world where no good result is possible.

The story told in “The Counterfeiters” is intrinsically interesting for the complexity of the moral questions it raises. As the box offices continue to be populated by concentration camp movies, “The Counterfeiters” will stick out because in this story, the victims are asked to take part in the crime—not just to turn a blind eye to the crime, but to actually participate in it. The movie is well acted, well directed, well written and suspenseful enough to keep anyone on the edge of their seat.

“The Counterfeiters” is rated R for some strong violence, brief sexuality/nudity and language.

"Stop-Loss"

2008-04-04T18:42:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Aimless, reckless, hopeless; a testosterone-driven rebellion; brash, illogical chaos—like a teenage boy navigating his way through awkward adolescence, “Stop-Loss” trips, stumbles and overstates itself for a sometimes moving but mostly perplexing and exasperating two hours. In the end, what you have is an unfortunate cross between “Cruel Intentions” and “Saving Private Ryan.”

Having faithfully fulfilled their contracts amidst brutal battles and terrifying ambushes, a group of enthusiastic and patriotic Texan-American soldiers in Iraq are sent home battle-worn and relieved to end their tour of duty. After a weekend of partying, drinking and fighting, the leader of the pack, Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe), learns that he is being stop-lossed: by executive order, he is being sent back to Iraq for another tour of duty. King argues with his commander over this decision, suggesting that although stop-lossing is legal during time of war, the president had declared the Iraq War a victory, and thus, stop-losses are illegal.

Predictably, the heartless commander would not have it. Instead of facing another tour of duty, King goes AWOL, pinning his hopes on talking to a Senator who promised to help him if he ever needed anything. While King is on the run, his friends and fellow soldiers, Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) and Tommy Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are falling apart mentally, emotionally and physically. Severe post-traumatic stress syndrome sets in for all of them, causing hallucinations, binge drinking and physical violence. Burgess quickly obtains two DUIs and Shriver digs trenches in his front yard with a spade in one hand and a gun in the other.

As the well-being of the group unravels further, Shriver pleas with King, who is making his way to the Canadian border, to turn himself in and help out his struggling comrades. King is torn between loyalty to his brothers-in-arms and what he thinks is right.

The weight of the topic and the power of the opening scenes set this movie up to be thought-provoking and convicting, but as soon as the young soldiers come home, this movie falls to pieces. Moral sympathy for the protagonists quickly fades, as it appears these combat vets have pre-existing dispositions towards reckless and immoral behavior, almost as if that is just the way things are done in Texas. They instantly become drunk, get in fist fights, drive drunk and crash into light poles, all with the approving grins of their parents and loved ones. This is all cast as harmless fun in this MTV production, with the only serious moral issue being the semantics of war.

The best way to think about this movie is to envision a ticked-off high school male, who is always angry and never in control of his emotions, has a tendency to overstate himself with abundant drama, and rarely supplements these attitudes with clarity or logic.

“Stop-loss” is politically charged, with the stated purpose being to portray the injustice of stop-lossing soldiers. But because this common practice is legal in time of war, unless audiences fail to make the distinction between the politics of the current war and long-standing military practices, the ethics of stop-lossing will remain murky at best. Furthermore, the film deals more with the psychological trauma that inflicts veterans after being exposed to war, as well as the legitimacy of the Iraq War, which are only tangentially related to the topic in the title of this movie. A straightforward discussion of the merits of stop-lossing might have been valuable, but this movie has an awkward message: war is ugly, particularly this one, and because this war is ugly, we should talk about common military practices that result in multiple tours of duty instead of criticizing the legitimacy of the first tour.

The acting was adolescent, the screenplay was adolescent, the attitudes were adolescent and the material was adult. Unless you are a teenager apt to be angry at anything, avoid “Stop-Loss.”

“Stop-Loss” is rated R for graphic violence and pervasive language.

"Horton Hears a Who"

2008-03-20T18:43:00.000-07:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Even though you can’t see them at all, a person’s a person no matter how small.” The rhyme, the meter and the message, all distinctly Seuss, join forces with Jim Carrey, Steve Carell and engaging animation to make “Horton Hears a Who” a delightful movie for children of all ages as well as adults who have Dr. Seuss in their blood.

“Horton Hears a Who” is about Horton (Jim Carrey), an aloof elephant, who hears a faint, high-pitched voice emanating from a tiny speck floating through the air. Oddly concerned, Horton instinctively tromps through the jungle to save this squeaky speck from destruction. After saving the speck by catching it on a bright pink flower, he establishes a connection with the zany mayor (Steve Carell) of a miniscule town called Whoville located in the center of the speck. Of course, the citizens of Whoville do not know they are little bigger than a molecule, and thus the populace of the community is about as likely to believe their mayor is talking to a giant elephant in the sky as the populace of a jungle is to believe that a goofy elephant has found a microscopic city on a speck.

On the one hand, Horton has to vie with a grouchy and obstinate kangaroo (Carol Burnett) who despises anyone claiming to believe in anything she cannot see, hear or feel. She tries to get Horton to give up his speck, and although one might ask why anyone would care about one elephant’s apparent fantasy, this kangaroo on a mission sees dispelling such fairy tales as a matter of principle. On the other hand, the mayor of Whoville is forced to cope with a pragmatic but delusional city council that strictly defends anything that threatens to sour the happy-go-lucky atmosphere of Whoville. This is not an easy sell-job, to say the least. “Hey, hon,” said the mayor to his wife. “Did you ever get the feeling that you are being watched, and that maybe that thing watching you is … eh, a giant elephant?”

While Horton and the mayor scramble to convince their friends, family and community of what they know, they both discover that Whoville is in great danger, as any slight change in Horton’s environment results in potentially catastrophic changes in Whoville. No one seems to get it besides Horton, the mayor and a select few who are more loyal to their eccentric friends than they are loyal to the idea that another world could exist. Thus, the task is left to Horton to save the speck, and to the mayor to convince the town to prepare for the worst.

How is it that a movie intended for a five-year-old can have more allegory, more metaphor and more meaning than 90 percent of the movies intended for adults? Are kids just more likely to listen? To learn? “Horton Hears a Who” is about faith, about standing up for what you know is right and true no matter what, and about opening ourselves up to the possibility of a world greater or more intricate than our own. Horton promises to save this tiny world, and “he says what he means and he means what he says.” It makes sense that the only characters who are open to the possibility of such alternate realities are the ones that are seen as eccentric, crazy and zany.

The typically-overacting Jim Carrey was perfectly cast as the voice of Horton, as was Steve Carell for the mayor of Whoville. Seth Rogan, Carol Burnett, Will Arnett and Isla Fisher filled out the cast nicely. The animation was brilliant and engaging, and the portion of the screenplay that was in addition to Seuss’ book did not miss a beat. “Horton Hears a Who,” although not at the Pixar level of a genius, was funny, instructive and endearing.

“Horton hears a Who” is rated G.

"The Spiderwick Chronicles"

2008-03-06T18:44:00.000-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Their world is closer than you think,” or so the movie tagline says. This world full of fairies, griffins and ogres, the world of “The Spiderwick Chronicles,” is a battle of good versus evil. It excites the imagination; it is fantastical—or so the ads say. The growling voices and flittering wings of “The Spiderwick Chronicles” may be whimsical enough to wow younger children, but the sub-par acting and cliché screenplay will ultimately fail to give older kids and adults an adequate excuse to stay inside on a Saturday afternoon.

Originally a book series by Holly Black and Tony DiTerlizzi, the cinematic version of “The Spiderwick Chronicles” begins with an obviously discontented single-parent family arriving at their new haunted-mansion-esque home in the wilderness. Originally from New York, Helen Grace (Mary-Louise Parker), her daughter Mallory (Sarah Bolger) and her twin sons Jared and Simon (Freddie Highmore), clearly have some adapting to do if they are to properly adjust to their new, creepy home—the only thing of which they know is that a relative and the last owner of the home was taken to a “nut house” after claiming that her father, Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn) was taken away by fairies.

As is to be expected, the children quickly discover that their long-forgotten relative was not so nutty after all, and her father was indeed taken away by fairies because he authored a book, “The Spiderwick Chronicles,” revealing the many secrets of a magical world not seen by most. As quickly as the family discovers that there is more to their new home than meets the eye, they also discover that this magical world is not all fairies and pixies. An evil ogre named Mulgarath (Nick Nolte) is trying to get his hands on the book so that he can discover the magical secrets chronicled by Spiderwick and use them to destroy everyone and everything. Thus, the task is left to three, out-of-place New York children to protect the book and the magical world from the wrath of this horrible creature.

While these three children are discovering facts about their family’s past, audiences are discovering that this plot is nothing short of formulaic. Even so, the details of the story are somehow still unpredictable at times, and honestly, just about anything with fairies and ogres is fun. At first, the movie seems to be about opening one’s eyes to an imaginative world so often ignored by busy, city-types, but as the story unfolds, the tale also becomes a caution against crippling escapism. Everything in moderation, I suppose is one of the less hackneyed messages of this film. But messages aside, this story is just that—a story. It is a battle between good and evil, and the torn family backdrop gives audiences an easy jumpstart of sympathy for the protagonists.

Unfortunately, the acting was rarely riveting and often inadequate. Even the ever-endearing Freddie Highmore (“Finding Neverland” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”) and David Strathairn (“Good Night and Good Luck”) register sub-par performances. Hearing the names of these familiar faces is usually reason enough to be excited about a movie, but that is all the more reason to be disappointed with this particular result. Movies like this hinge on the audience-protagonist relationship, and the lack of such a connection in “The Spiderwick Chronicles” kept it from delivering a knockout punch.

This movie is fun, this movie is fun—I keep telling myself. It is fun, but not good. If that is all right with you or your children, check out “The Spiderwick Chronicles.” “The Spiderwick Chronicles” is rated PG for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements.

"Definitely, Maybe"

2008-02-21T18:45:00.000-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“It’s complicated … It’s complicated,” recited Will Hayes to his daughter, Maya, as he recounts his winding journey from attraction to love to marriage—marriage to Maya’s mother. This slumber party storytelling adventure called “Definitely, Maybe” is indeed complicated, and unique, but is it fulfilling?

Disillusioned with the impending divorce of her parents, the precocious Maya (Abigail Breslin) asks her dad to recall the story of how he and his soon-to-be ex-wife met and fell in love. When Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) repeatedly retreats to his mantra of “It’s complicated,” Maya refuses to let her father off the hook. The father and daughter compromise, deciding to turn the story into a love mystery—with names and facts askew, Maya has to figure out which woman in her father’s tangled love story is her mother.

Hayes lives up to his mantra, as he goes from gorgeous woman to gorgeous woman; blonde, brunette, and redhead; feeling all the woes of romantic hardship—mostly self-inflicted. At various points in this story, Maya interjects with her own thoughts, feelings and hopes. She cannot help but root for various characters in her dad’s narrative, hoping both that her mother will be the character she likes best and that her dad will have chosen the woman best suited for him.

In “Definitely, Maybe” writer/director Adam Brooks has given himself the ample of task of forging a connection between the main character and not one woman, but three. This web of love and attraction leaves the viewer wondering where the story is going—which can be a great thing if it does go somewhere, but a terrible thing if it goes nowhere at all.

Although the plot of this movie jumps and stalls like an old car, it does go somewhere, but mostly thanks to an able cast. Abigail Breslin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) and Rachel Weisz (“The Constant Gardner”) are as wonderful as ever, and Ryan Reynolds (“Van Wilder”) and Isla Fisher (“Wedding Crashers”) contribute a respectable amount of that charming gooey-glue that holds together every successful chick flick.

Unfortunately, there was not quite enough of that gooey-glue in the movie to hold together the labyrinthine plot and the awkward political setting (Hayes works on a presidential campaign), but I know that plenty of movie-goers will still enjoy this movie. Like me, many people will find “Definitely, Maybe” easy to sit through, but also like me, most people will instantly forget the movie. “Definitely, Maybe” should get some credit for a unique idea and a decent cast, but the praise ends there.

“Definitely, Maybe” is rated PG-13 for sexual content, including some frank dialogue, language and smoking.

Duncan’s Oscar Predictions

The following is a list of my predictions for the 80th Annual Academy Awards, which will air on Sunday, Feb. 24. All nominations are listed in alphabetical order, my predictions are in bold and the nominees I think are most deserving of the award are in italics.

Best Picture: “No Country for Old Men,” “There Will Be Blood,” “Michael Clayton,” “Juno,” and “Atonement.”

Best Actor: George Clooney (“Michael Clayton”), Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”), Johnny Depp (“Sweeney Todd and the Demon Barber of Fleet Street”), Tommy Lee Jones (“In the Valley of Elah”), and Viggo Mortenson (“Eastern Promises”).

Best Actress: Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth: The Golden Age”), Julie Christie (“Away From Her”), Marion Cotillard (“Le Vie en Rose”), Laura Linney (“The Savages”), and Ellen Page (“Juno”).

Best Director: Julian Schnabel (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”), Jason Reitman (“Juno”), Tony Gilroy (“Michael Clayton”), Joel and Ethan Coen (“No Country for Old Men”), and Paul Thomas Anderson (“There Will Be Blood”).

"No Country for Old Men"

2008-02-07T18:45:00.000-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

The streets of Santa Barbara were littered with casts and crews, fans and flatterers, during the Santa Barbara International Film Festival last week, all abuzz over the Coen brother’s latest film, “No Country for Old Men.” The film, which matched “There Will Be Blood” for most Oscar nods (including nominations for best supporting actor, best director and best picture), sent two of its cast, Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem, to Santa Barbara to be honored with special awards. At the Montecito Award ceremony for Javier Bardem, film festival executive director Roger Durling described Bardem’s performance as “the defining performance of the year,” specifically vaulting him over Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth: The Golden Age”), Julie Christie (“Away From Her”) and Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”).

In “No Country for Old Men,” Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a simple West Texan, comes across a satchel filled with cash from a drug deal gone awry. Instead of turning the money in or avoiding the potential dangers altogether, Moss decides to keep the money, hiding it under his house until he can make accommodations for him and his wife to leave. However, a tracking device planted in the money reveals his location both to Mexican drug dealers and to Anton Chigurh (Javier Barden), a senseless, psychopathic killer on the loose. It soon becomes clear that the biggest hurdle Moss will have to overcome to maintain both the money and his family’s livelihood is Chigurh, as he spends most of the movie fleeing from the stone-faced murderer the audience knows nothing about except that he has a bizarre haircut and that he uses his preferred weapons, a cattle gun and a tank of compressed air, with ruthless dexterity.

As the plot progresses, the conflict becomes more complex due to Chigurh’s principled, albeit random, acts of evil. Chigurh’s pursuit of Moss shows all the hallmarks of greater purpose, yet lacks any definable motivation typically associated with sanity. When Chigurh is offered the money by a cornered Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson), a man sent to find and kill him, he turns it down, saying that he prefers “something better,” that is, to have the money placed under his feet by Moss.

Meanwhile, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) investigates the crimes surrounding the money with a nonplussed demeanor. He is not confused by the nature of the crimes, but by the purpose or reason behind the crimes. Bell is more of a thematic narrator, as his biggest role in the film is as an “old man,” who is set in contrast to a new kind of criminal; a criminal with no soul.

In the beginning of the film, Bell says, “The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job—not to be glorious. But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. You can say it's my job to fight it, but I don't know what it is anymore. More than that, I don't want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, ‘OK, I'll be part of this world.’”

And thus, this on-the-edge-of-your-seat thriller becomes more than just a fast-moving plot line. It becomes a metaphor for evil, violence and greed.

So does “No Country for Old Men” live up to the hype? Of course not. It is good, but not that good. It is deep enough, but just as much about filling the seats with moviegoers eager to see a suspenseful bloodbath as it is about the nature of violence and criminality in the United States and abroad. Bardem’s performance was good enough to earn him the Oscar for best supporting actor, but it was not “the defining performance of the year,” as Roger Durling so fawningly pronounced. If that distinction could be given to anyone, it would be to Daniel Day-Lewis for “There Will Be Blood.”

“No Country for Old Men” was a good movie, and very entertaining. Although many viewers were dissatisfied with the perplexing ending, the conclusion was part of the Coen brother’s art, and without it the film could not have been the artistic success that it was.

“No Country for Old Men” is rated R for strong, graphic violence and some language.

"There Will Be Blood"

2008-01-17T18:47:00.000-08:00

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

There will be no second-guessing the merits of “There Will Be Blood” when it is propelled to the top of the list for this year’s Academy Awards, as Daniel Day-Lewis provides a shockingly convincing performance and writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Magnolia,” “Punch-Drunk Love”) comes through once again by brilliantly developing the subtle symbolism and profound metaphor of a story pregnant with meaning.

“There Will Be Blood” is based on the novel “Oil!” by Upton Sinclair, who is best known for his bleak exposé of the abuses of free market capitalism in “The Jungle.” “There Will Be Blood” follows Daniel Plainview (Lewis), a self-proclaimed “oil man,” through his unflinching pursuit of profit and domination in the oilfields of the California countryside at the start of the 20th century. Although Plainview battles with genuine feelings of love for his adopted son, H.W. (Dillon Freasier), he shows an unabashed willingness to use, manipulate, deceive, and destroy anything or anyone on his path to riches. Anderson uses Sinclair’s story to portray a competitive economic landscape intrinsically designed to corrupt all those grasped within its clutches.

The movie opens with violent, horror-flick-like shrieks from a score that hangs over the entire movie like an ominous rain cloud, foretelling the impending doom of those trapped within the barren setting and even more barren lifestyle of greed. Plainview, both the character and the idea, interacts with the concepts of community, family, and religion, revealing that no one, no matter how innocent or holy, is immune to corruption in a system that necessitates competition and duplicity for survival. Although Plainview bears the largest thematic load in this story, manipulation in the name of money is by no means a quality limited to the oil tycoon.

Despite the fact that this screenplay can stand on its own two feet, Lewis’ performance gives the film an added punch that truly makes its sinister ambience work well. The only weak performance delivered in this movie came from Paul Dano (“Little Miss Sunshine”), who played Eli Sunday, a passionate, yet hypocritical preacher. Even though Lewis’ performance more than made up for Dano, the latter still managed to make several scenes feel like a high school play.

“There Will Be Blood” is not a good pick if you are looking for a light-hearted day at the movies or if you are looking for an energetic action thriller. But if you are in the mood for a powerful and profound movie that may depress rather than elate, “There Will Be Blood” is a perfect pick. Anderson’s subtle symbolism enriches this movie greatly, but the power of the imagery and acting alone is enough to make his point. Although it is doubtful that this movie will be for everyone, Anderson more than succeeds in doing what he set out to do.

“There Will Be Blood” is rated R for some violence.