Movie Roundup: 12/12/08

I am horrible. I realize this. I said I was going to start writing in this blog again, and then just ... didn't. And I had no excuse, either, because when I said this, I was still on summer break. I had time. I couldn't play the "oh well school has made me so busy" card.

So here I am. It's mid-December already (holy shit, what?). I'm making an early New Year's resolution to actually maintain this thing. To actually post in it. We'll see if the third time's the charm, or I'm still just a horrible liar.

Instead of making up for lost time, I just decided to start from where I am now and go from there. I call this little module Movie Roundup, and -- especially over winter break, when I'll likely be doing quite a bit of viewing -- it's something I want to post every week or two. It's nothing special. Just little capsules of comments, observations, and so forth on the films I have watched in the duration. It's entirely self-explanatory.

So let's do it. These are all the films I've watched over the last week and a half or so. And now it's apparent to me why none of my homework ever gets done.

Also: if a title is in orange, it simply means I have seen the film before. No biggie.

A brief overview of ratings:
My numerical scores here are roughly equivalent to my star ratings on the Flixster Facebook thing. For instance, a five-star review on Flixster will not always (or often) equate to a 100 rating. In fact, only four or five films I've ever seen are likely to get a 100. With that in mind:
90-100: Blissful, orgasmic cinema. This is something extremely special.
80-89: An excellent, unmissable film. I probably own this (or will) and you should, too.
70-79: A very strong film well worth seeing.
60-69: This is good. It has some problems, but it's still an enjoyable piece of work.
50-59: The gray area. Certain things work about this, other things don't. It depends on mood and taste.
40-49: A mediocre or lackluster film. There's nothing offensive about this, but it's just very uninspiring.
30-39: Plain bad. Don't go near this, please.
20-29: Incredibly terrible. Only worth a viewing if self-torture is desired.
0-19: Hooooo mama.

Onward.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (David Fincher, 2008) 82
I don't get it. I don't understand the already-huge backlash against this. This is a wonderful film, one that affected me profoundly on an emotional level that very few movies even get close to. For a long time, David Fincher has been one of the best directors out there; whether his films are good (Se7en, The Game) or not (Fight Club, Panic Room), they're always directed with a dizzying proficiency that puts most others to shame. Benjamin Button is no different -- from its first frame to its last, it's visually stunning in ways few other films this year have been. And the story itself is wonderful: it's NOT your run-of-the-mill Hollywood romance, and it's the implications of this unusualness that give it such an emotional potency. The acting, likewise, is stellar: Brad Pitt once again proves that he's one of the most underrated actors out there (the man can ACT, dammit!), while Cate Blanchett -- as is her custom -- is a superb counterpart. The majority of the film's heartstring-tugging rests on her shoulders, and in the film's final act, she's really something to behold. So all in all, I don't buy any of the complaints I've been hearing. It's not too long (it's 167 minutes; lengthy, sure, but I think it requires that length), the pacing isn't flawed (does it not match the goals of the story very well?), it doesn't have "too many morals" (wait, this is a complaint?). It's just a fine, fine piece of cinema. It's different, it's striking, it's entertaining, and it's moving. The amount of people who don't seem to see it this way is, to my way of thinking, the most "curious" thing about it.

The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008) 94
I just saw this for the third time and, once again, I can't pick any faults with it whatsoever. Christopher Nolan has given the world the most intelligent, fully realized blockbuster in more time than I care to think about. The story, far more complex and nuanced than the vast majority of mainstream films (and massive kudos for that), is excellent, and the sum total of the performances is greater than any other film of 2008. At this point, there's very little doubt in my mind that Heath Ledger will win a posthumous Academy Award. He gives one of the best screen performances of all-time and, dead or alive, I think the world sees that he needs to be recognized for it. I also see potential nominations (but not wins) for the film itself and for Nolan as director/screenwriter. We shall see. And I shall see it again (and again and again), especially upon its theatrical re-release in late January.

Lady Vengeance (Chan-Wook Park, 2006) 56
And so it ends, not with a bang but a whimper. My friend Alex said it best: "It seems like they made this as an excuse to be pretty." While this in itself is not a bad reason to make a film, and it certainly is good-looking, that pesky "story" thing should also be given some thought. Oldboy combined gorgeous visuals with a existence-shakingly powerful narrative; Mr. Vengeance, though lesser, also managed to be successful on both fronts. This one, even taken on its own merits, is not as satisfying. Its fragmented structure is interesting, but it gets too tangled up in itself. I'm not an imperceptive guy, and there were places here where I felt like Park was specifically trying to beat around the bush instead of just TELLING me what happened. Also, I can't quite put my finger on it, but the group vengeance scene, in addition to being far too long and drawn-out and inappropriately played for comic effect, has something very off-putting about it. Sure, the whole trilogy is dark and mean-spirited and violent, but there was something about this that just did NOT feel right, and that certainly taints the film. So, yeah. It's flawed. Like crazy. Nonetheless, it IS entertaining and it IS pretty. I'd never go so far as to call it a bad film, but it just can't hold a candle to what came before.

Oldboy (Chan-Wook Park, 2005) 92
I was wondering what my next five-star rating would be. According to Flixster, the last time I bestowed that rating upon a film was in my review of The Dark Knight back in July. As I see more and more films, the truly exceptional ones seem fewer and farther between. Here's the good news: the spell is over. Holy shit, is this a great movie. I can't even begin to say. Not only is the cinematography absolutely gorgeous, but the story itself is harrowing in a way that left me speechless. There's one moment in particular near the end where it all finally clicks together and you say to yourself, "Oh, fuck no." The ensuing gut-punch is unreal. Yes, it's a relentlessly bleak film (no wonder it hasn't really caught on stateside), but it's the kind I can wholeheartedly get behind. Haunting, unique, and overflowing with pathos, this may be the finest Asian film of the 00's.

Run Lola Run (Tom Tykwer, 1999) 75
I massively underrated this the first time I saw it (my 2.5 star rating in Flixster probably would've equated to a 53 or some such). While I still can't quite see this as the modern classic it's touted as, it's certainly one of the most stylish and well-directed movies I have seen. Tykwer seems adamant about throwing in every cinematic technique known to man somewhere. Consequently, it's a veritable kaleidoscope of color, editing, and music; while it's frequently exhilarating, it's also exhausting. By the end, you're impressed, but you're also glad it's over. 80 minutes might seem excessively brief until you actually sit through this thing. Head still reeling, it's hard not to be impressed, but I still sort of wish Tykwer had done something else with it. What, I'm not sure, because it certainly feels as if he's done everything with it, but clearly there's still something missing. Ah well. At least I liked it a lot more this time, right?

SLC Punk (James Merendino, 1998) 66
For its appealingly brief 96 minutes, SLC Punk walks a dangerous two-edged sword. It comes equipped with a well thought-out message, but lacks an effective means by which to deliver it. As a result, it opts for the bludgeoning technique, which -- needless to say -- can get a bit tiresome. After a while, you get it and wish the film would move on. It doesn't. Which isn't to say this is bad. On the contrary, it's actually quite entertaining. First of all, it has something to say, which puts it ahead of a good many films already, but it's also much funnier than I expected it to be. Which is to say, I wasn't expecting it to be played for laughs at all, but it is, and those laughs are genuine. For some reason, the scene of Steve-O's old friend attempting to apply for a job in a chothing store stands out. Who knows why? But, yeah, it's a good film. It's youthful, energetic, somewhat anarchic, and -- with these in mind -- fun. I just wish I could add "subtle" to that list of adjectives, but you can't have everything.

Slumdog Millionaire (Danny Boyle, 2008) 90
Damn, this was good. I mean, no, really: damn, this was good. It's such a rare experience to walk out of a so-called "feel-good movie" feeling good not only because the story itself was legitimately uplifting, but also because everything just WORKED. Calling this a game-show version of City of God may sound inadvertently deprecatory, it's actually a very apt comparison; the good news is, while not nearly as dark or violent, Slumdog Millionaire is very nearly as good as Meirelles' 2002 masterpiece. Stylishly directed by Danny Boyle (of Trainspotting and 28 Days Later fame) in a way that's flashy but adds to the goings-on, this is a simple story amazingly well-told with great performances and visuals to accompany it. The main character is so damn likable that you're really on the edge of your seat the whole time just hoping he'll pull through. In a year distressingly absent of great movies, here's one that's crept in just under the finish line. I can't even begin to tell you how welcome it is.

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (Chan-Wook Park, 2003) 64
Let's put it this way: I am so, so, so glad I saw this before Oldboy. If I'd seen it after, it -- as good as it is -- would've been a disappointment. And it's a very good revenge film. It's stylish and entertaining and held my interest throughout (though I do agree, Adam, that the "let's spell it out for you!" ending can be done without; I got it well before the voiceover came on), but it's also the sort of film one leaves expecting a bit more from. Luckily for us, more is coming. In my case, I only had to wait 30 minutes for it.

Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008) 71
Charlie Kaufman is no lightweight. He's written no less than three of our finest contemporary movies (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine, for those keeping score). This film, his directorial debut, is the result of all that success. As such, it's very much what you might expect. Being torn between deciding whether something is brilliant or utter pretentious wankery is not a common condition in film today, but Synecdoche, New York delivers on that promise. It's two hours of a maverick screenwriter trying, much like his main character, to create the ultimate "deep, meaningful story about life." Does Kaufman succeed? No, but neither does his character. That's the point. The movie is highly imperfect, but in that respect it's totally perfect, because life itself is similarly flawed. So do you see the issues I'm having trying to review this stupid thing? Every potential mistake it makes can be totally rectified by playing the "oh but it's life" card. So that just leaves me with my opinion. What did I think of it? Well, I think Roger Ebert is right: it's the sort of film you should never see unless you've seen it already. It's difficult, complex, unwieldy, bizarre, highly surreal, multi-layered, and -- I suspect -- quite meaningful. Hell, it's a Kaufman film. It hit me on an intriguing emotional level the first time; who's to say how it'd affect me a second? That is to say, I liked it. About as much, perhaps, as I like life itself. On some days, it's great. On other days, it sucks. On most days, it's simply a very curious thing.

Wow. I've been watching some surprisingly good stuff over the last week and a half. I'm impressed. It's hardly ever this good. Damn.

Later.