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.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
"Stop-Loss"
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.
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.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"Horton Hears a Who"
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.
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.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
"The Spiderwick Chronicles"
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.
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.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
"Definitely, Maybe"
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”).
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”).
Thursday, February 7, 2008
"No Country for Old Men"
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.
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.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"There Will Be Blood"
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)