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.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Thursday, December 1, 2011
"Melancholia"
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
"The Ides of March"
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.
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.
Monday, October 3, 2011
"Moneyball"
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.
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.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
"Our Idiot Brother"
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.
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.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
"Crazy, Stupid, Love"
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”.
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”.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
"Thor"
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)