Easy A: 6.6/10 - Raises beyond the level of forgettable high school flick due to its witty writing and the homage it pays to past films of the same genre, but it is the lively and eccentric performance from Emma Stone that makes it truly worth the watch.
The Town: 9.7/10 - It’d be easier to just come out and say the obvious: this is not your older sister’s Ben Affleck. In Affleck’s second directorial feature, “The Town,” he proves that “Gone Baby Gone” was no fluke and that he is leaving his days of soft, pretty boy, “Reindeer Games” persona behind. “The Town” is gritty, it’s bleak, it gives of that sense of inescapability and, above all, it’s real good.
One of Affleck’s finest directorial achievements thus far is his ability to create an atmosphere or an overall tone. With striking similarities to 2007’s “Gone Baby Gone”, “The Town” presents a gripping look at the type of crime and corruption that resides in Charlestown and Affleck capitalizes on various shots of Boston, whether it is the low-class areas or Fenway Park, to make an impact. Although “The Town” can stick on anyone’s mind, it has to be the Boston area residents who flow with the film the best as they see the familiar landmarks and can’t help but think “that’s my home and this is what happens there.” While there’s more than one character of interest, Affleck’s Doug MacRay is the one with whom audience’s can empathize. Throughout the film, Doug is the focal point. Many of the film’s most telling shots are of him and no other and gives off the vibe that, while he does his job without a driving force, he’s trapped in a city that’s shown him no love in return. Once the love story is factored in, Doug becomes an easy character to root for.
“The Town” features of the best-chosen casts of 2010 and it’s hard to choose a stand-out. Certainly Blake Lively, who played Krista Coughlin, Jim Coughlin’s (Jeremy Renner) sister deserves credit as she steps well out of her comfort zone. Lively becomes this year’s Amy Ryan in terms of playing raunchy low-class Boston drug addicts and it seems that Affleck may just have a thing for bringing out the versatility in actors. Affleck and Renner both are at the tops of their game, especially Renner whose tough guy act may be among the best of the year. Jon Hamm and Rebecca Hall also give much more than adequate performances.
Paranoid Park: 8.5/10 - Beautifully shot, including several lingering, yet chilling scenes, acted with extreme delicacy that mixes reality with the undeniable, gut-twisting feeling of being surreal plus spot on writing and pacing that features a unique and powerful narrative brings the spectator into the world of the lead.
Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation: 8.1/10 - It’s got a cult following and deservedly so, for the early 1960’s this film is chaotic and, while it can drag on at times, is a great mixture of charm, humor, and family values. James Stewart gives one of his most underrated performances and his sarcasm produces a good amount of laughs.
You Kill Me: 7.3/10 - Certainly not the most innovative movie in the world, but its laid-back story doesn't try to do too much and its characters, especially Kingsley's hit man, are created on a level the viewer can mesh with. Perfect pacing mixed with transitional humor that flows so well to the point of being natural and the cast make this one worth the watch.
I Love You Phillip Morris: 7.0/10 - For those familiar with Carrey, it's difficult to see anyone but him on the screen; however, he continues to further master his craft and gives one of his best performances. Though, Ewan McGregor steals the show. It's as "in your face" as they come, but the writing and acting make it a winner.
La Haine: 8.9/10- Great depiction of the French banlieue as a whole, but the character Vinz steals the show as a Jew looking to fit in in the projects...very important film for France, past, present and future, does a good job of showing the evils both the demonstrators and the police...wonderful shot, beautifully written, great direction and great performances.
Where Are My Children?: 7.8/10- Growing up in this generation and having to watch a silent film is certainly a poor mix, but at just 65 minutes long this film works. The viewer truly feels for the main characters, which speaks undeniable truths about the physical acting, for its time it is INCREDIBLE storytelling and its direction is spot on.
Moonlight Mile: 6.1/10 - If nothing else, it's a nice portrayal of how a family copes with a loss of their daughter, the cast brings life to the characters, their feelings and the audiences connection with them, but the writing makes the story vague to the point where instead of truly feeling connected, the viewer is no more than one of the annoying outsiders giving their sympathies to the family.
The Wendell Baker Story: 5.2/10 - Never tries to be something it's not, which scores this one some points, but in the end it's a very forgettable, typical redemption story that offers little to think about and doesn't contain enough laughs to be relevant or, at times, come off as boring. The cast didn't really have their heart in it.
Big Nothing: 7.1/10 - If nothing else, a highly entertaining, off-beat and dark comedy.
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard: 2.9/10 - Some of it's humor was borderline offensive due to the poor nature in which it was presented, Jeremy Piven tries to save it from being a disaster, but even those attempts were feeble, terrible story, terrible writing, all recycled, what a waste of a great cast.
The Chateau: 6.3/10 - Not really sure what to think of it at the moment, definitely makes one think about relationships, but for the most part the movie is overly boring and about two guys heartless enough to kick an old staff out of a chateau and the staff who's stubborn enough to not go down without a fight.
Sexy Beast: 8.1/10 - One of the more original crime films I've seen, simple, but good story, but is made by its characters and cast, especially (like many others say) Ben Kinsley.
St. John of Las Vegas: 2.4/10
Piled in with all of the gold that the indie genre brings year-to-year is the occasional swing and miss: enter “St. John of Las Vegas.” Nothing about the movie is fun, enjoyable, entertaining. It may be easy to blame first time director Hue Rhodes, but most of “St. John’s” flaws lay in its overall structure. The characters are unlikeable, the oddballs aren’t quirky and the story takes a one way trip to nowhere. It’s easy to chalk “St. John of Las Vegas” as the disappointment of 2009.
It’s hard to tell amidst all the mumble-jumble, but the plot of St. John of Las Vegas centers around John (Steve Buscemi), a down-on-his-luck former gambler who, upon asking his boss (Peter Dinklage) for a raise, gets teamed up with the mean-spirited Virgil (Romany Malco) to investigate a case of insurance fraud. Naturally, the trip turns into one big peculiar ride full of nonsense. Some of the quirky characters met along the way include a pair of nudists (led by Tim Blake Nelson), a wheelchair-bound stripper and a man in a suit that sets him ablaze.
The essential component of success in a movie that attempts to be quirky, as “St. John of Las Vegas” does, is the feeling of true oddity. In “St. John’s” case, every aspect of the movie, from the story to the characters, seemed forced. Honestly, the film is set up to be a ridiculous ride that ultimately makes John come to a realization about his life, but it just doesn’t fit together properly. John’s compulsive gambling has absolutely nothing to do with the adventure he takes with Virgil and the people he meets along the way serve basically no purpose. To make matters worse, these characters are also forgettable meaning that they lacked the sheer insanity to stick to the mind even if they’re screen time was limited.
While on lasting just over an hour and twenty-two minutes, “St. John of Las Vegas” seems infinitely longer. Opting to go with a bunch of quick scenes as opposed to a few thought-provoking longer ones, it’s hard to take anything out of most of the film and even more difficult to take in what’s going on at a certain time. The narrative is split in three separate ways, the first being a dream sequence, the second being real time and the final, and largest chunk, is by way of flashback. Neither the dream sequences nor the real time scenes hold much value and are, to be blunt, misplaced. Both deal with John’s struggles with lack and gambling, but it completely opposes what’s happening in the flashback. John took the fraud job looking to make more money and prove himself to his boss. Instead of the quick fix, John is working his way up the totem pole. The flash forwards and dream sequences offer nothing of substance and almost seem to be trying to force the issue of a relapse for John.
The actors gave it their best, but at times it seemed almost half-heartedly. As John, Buscemi isn’t wandering too far away from the character he knows, yet his performance isn’t enough to keep John from being unlikable. With no emotional connection to him or his problems, he gives of vibes of being pathetic in an almost creepy way. The rest of the characters aren’t a treat either. Sarah Silverman’s Jill is so obsessive with smiley faces and is so upbeat that it makes the viewer want nothing more to puke. Meanwhile, Malco’s Virgil may be one of the easiest characters to dislike in cinema history. Far from his hilarious character in “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” Malco tries to be humorous by being a cold SOB, which doesn’t come close to working. Dinklage, like many times previously, may have been the best part of the film, but his lack of screen time undermines the performance. In layman’s terms, “St. John of Las Vegas” has a worthy cast, but poor writing that reflects badly upon them.
As it attempts to feed off of obscurity that isn’t there, “St. John of Las Vegas” becomes less and less entertaining. Eventually, the viewer grows tired of the story, the characters and their shenanigans and becomes uninterested of what may come next. The cast is star-studded, but there is nothing they can do to save the nonsensical story or the shotty dialogue. Everything about “St. John of Las Vegas” is forgettable and the real fraud may just be the story itself. Don’t bother taking the time to dive into John’s life, there’s nothing remotely interesting you want to see, unless, of course, you want a look at Tim Blake Nelson’s penis.
The American: 7.6/10
Coming off of one of his best years, George Clooney signed onto “The American,” the story of an assassin hiding out in Italy for one final mission. Quickly it rose to the top of many people’s “most anticipated” list. After all, the trailer seemed to carry all the essentials for an enjoyable two hours: Clooney, who has gone from heart throb to all around respected actor, attractive foreign women, violence, suspense, danger, weapons and sex. Here’s the problem: the trailer can sometimes paint a much different picture. Did “The American” contain all of the above mentioned characteristics? Yes, but in smaller portions than anticipated. “The American” has, for the most part, been met with mixed response, which comes as no surprise. Some may have let the deception of what they believed the story to be about completely overtake them. Others wouldn’t even bother to think of the film in broader terms due to it’s, for lack of a better word, boring story. It’s not for everyone, but “The American” definitely holds a point.
The plot is rather straightforward; an assassin named Jack (Clooney) is hiding out in Italy for one final task. During his stay, he becomes friendly with a priest and striking prostitute named Clara.
Anyone who comes into “The American” expecting to see a Bourne/Bond-like spy film will be disappointed. By no means does our main assassin appear to be on the run like a Jason Bourne, nor is he quite as cool and vocal as James Bond. Broken down, “The American” follows Jack day-by-day and gives its audience a rare treat; actually seeing the lifestyle of an assassin. Certainly the landscape helped, but there seemed to be something beautiful about the seclusion of the story. Although it was downgraded for its inability to form an emotional connection between its characters and the audience, “The American” may just take advantage of it. Typical of the assassin story, Jack is rather alone save for one or two individuals. With a lack of dialogue and physical acting that gives off the vibe that it’s “business as usual,” the emotional connection, or lack thereof, between Jack and the audience is parallel to the character on screen and the stories worldly contact. An emotional connection may not form with the character, but the audience does get to experience how Jack must be feeling. Cooped up, secluded, yet alert and waiting for something to happen because, after all, it is an assassin movie.
Obviously, “The American” isn’t without its flaws. While some have no problem accepting the story as it is, for the other half the movie is one hundred and six minutes of torture. It contains action, but it’s spread out through such longer intervals that it’s not nearly enough to hold the interest of the common moviegoer. Its narrative timeline and overall structure give off the feel of an independent film more so than a wide release. For many, seeing George Clooney walk around, drive around, sit in his room and fiddle with fire arms certainly won’t be worth the watch and the fact that “The American” contains much less dialogue than the usual movie complicates matters more. Overall, for most viewers, the problem with the film won’t be of deeper meaning such as caring for the characters or trying to figure out Jack as a character study, but the fact that not enough direct action is happening on screen.
As “The American” only contained a few major characters, crediting the cast is more difficult. First and foremost, George Clooney brings his absolute A-game as the reserved, unexpressive hit man. Due to the lack of dialogue, most of Clooney’s acting is from a physical standpoint. Clooney’s patience has been worthy of kudos as most scenes simply called for him to look alert, yet almost bored; meeting at an undisclosed point that almost suggests deep thought. Almost always speaking in monotone, Clooney truly becomes the figure of an isolated, cold-blooded killer. The rest of the cast is simply built around Clooney’s character, as Clara, Violante Placido does her job of being both sexy and mysterious enough to keep Jack on edge. In the end, Placido’s character as well as Paolo Bonacelli’s Father Benedetto is nothing more than the shadows of people Jack happens to bump into during his work. Their lack of screen time says all that one needs to know: Jack is alone.
One of the seemingly unanimous praises that “The American” has received is for its cinematography. Filmed in Italy, the filmmakers had the advantage of going to town for their viewers to make sure to paint a masterpiece of a setting. While the overhead shots as well as the riverbed shots will receive most praise, many of the alleyway scenes were shoot will extreme delicacy and help the film set the atmosphere and tone. Another aspect of the cinematography that will undoubtedly go under the radar is the many shots that contain Jack and only Jack, from street shots to café shots to shots in his car and room. It reinforces the separation of Jack from the rest of the world and emphasizes his hiding.
When all is said and done, “The American” won’t be everyone’s cup of tea. The pacing is rather quick on a day-by-day basis, but for some this narrative structure will become tiresome and tedious. Simply put, it will not be a fun, or entertaining watch. On the other hand, fans of the independent film, big fans of the spy/thriller movie and George Clooney fans should take the time to check the movie out. “The American” never tries to be anything that it isn’t and its style offers a change of pace that will make for an enjoyable watch for those looking for something like it.
Yeah. I've had a lot of spare time this week.