Film in 2012: Reviews

Premium Rush. Action. ★★ 1/2 (Fair-Good)
I usually enjoy movies that take unconventional, everyman roles and turn them into heroes. Daniel Koepp does this with NYC's bicycle messengers. Surreal "gaming" motifs are regularly inserted into the story, at times turning Premium Rush into a muted Scott Pilgrim. Stereotyped roles: the dirty cop, the ex-girlfriend, the Chinese loan shark, the self-obsessed rival, the impatient boss. Ironically Gordon-Levitt (the lead role) did injure himself while cycling too fast during shooting. An appropriately light-hearted movie worth seeing if you need to unwind.

Looper. Science fiction action. ★★1/2 (Fair-Good)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis play Joe Simmons' younger and older selves in this science fiction action thriller. "Looper" derives a unique premise from a previously unexplored possibility of time travel, an increasingly rare beast. There are glimpses of a larger world behind the sharply drawn characters thrust into the foreground, which gives the story a depth often lacking in modern sci-fi. The story would have worked better if the two leading roles could have looked a bit more like each other. Great entertainment, some implicit philosophical issues for a thinking viewer (like "Minority Report", are individuals already culpable for actions not yet committed? Can trying to avoid a certain future result in its very fulfillment?), and overall a lean and trim addition to the genre.

Argo. Historical drama/thriller. ★★★ (Good)
After "Good Will Hunting", Ben Affleck was been in so many bad movies ("Pearl Harbor", "Daredevil"), it is positively thrilling to see him succeed again. I never saw The Town, the only other film Affleck both starred in and directed, so this was a first for me. Based on a true story (certain points about the Iranian government and the role of the CIA have received criticism), this film had me on the edge of my seat for nearly the whole two hours. Ever since "A Separation" I have wanted to see another movie based in Iran, and with "Argo" I was able to revel in the Arabic world once again. Unfortunately, with American-Iranian relations at such a historic low, "Argo" exploits current public anti-Iranian sentiment and fails to engender any sympathy for the Iranian people. But in terms of raw entertainment, you can't get much better than this.

Cloud Atlas. Drama and science fiction. ★★★ (Good)
The most expensive independent film ever produced ($102 million budget) and the most recent work of the Wachowskis ("The Matrix", "V for Vendetta"). This is intended as a philosophical work, but only attentive viewers will pick up on the connections between the six stories from six different time periods, ranging from the 19th century South Pacific to the post-apocalyptic 24th century. This mosaic takes a dozen actors and recycles them with some consistency across the half dozen stories, which provides some guidance for the connections that are supposed to be made and the patterns supposed to be seen. After an ambitious three hours of airtime, I was satisfied with the movie's message, although many movie critics apparently were not. Worst movie of 2012? Best movie of 2012? Neither. Some of the mini-stories are compelling and interesting; others are not. Some of the philosophical points are said well (fighting against a greater power to find the truth and free oneself is the occasion to demonstrate the noblest qualities of our race) and others are not (actions and consequences of individual lives impact each other and last far into the future). My recommendation is to leave your snarky side at home and see what signs you can read in this ever-shifting Atlas.

Skyfall. Action. ★★ 1/2 (Fair-Good)
Martin Campbell directed the first, Marc Foster the second, and now this third Craig installment of this Bond reboot (after Brosnan derailed the franchise in an attempt to be "the last Bond") is directed by Sam Mendes, whom I love for "American Beauty" and "Revolutionary Road", but I didn't know he had a talent for action. Admittedly, this 23rd Bond film feels very different from anything else in the entire corpus, mostly because Bond is not playing spy but rather a bodyguard most of the time. There are still the great action and chase scenes but, for the first time, Bond is not the target. This being the case, Bond feels like another agent, and Bond's world has a chance to grow beyond the constraints of megalomania. In fact, I would suggest that the franchise has more fundamentally evolved with this film than with any other as far back as "On His Majesty's Secret Service", the first movie after Connery's retirement from the franchise, and the occasion of Bond's only marriage (his wife is killed shortly thereafter). The story arc that started in "Casino Royale" continues to develop his character into the roundest any movie Bond has ever been. I am still unhappy with Ben Whishaw's persistence as Q but hopefully that role will be recast next time around.

Silver Linings Playbook. Romantic Comedy/Drama ★★★1/2 (Good-Great)
Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawerence co-star in this full and compelling romance about two people who have lost their spouses (although in vastly different ways) and struggle to move on. If half of the joy of this film is piecing together the backstory, the characters' motives, and the truth, the other half is watching them bounce off each other at each encounter. It's like nuts in a nuthouse. Each pair of characters exhibits its own fiery chemistry and the verbal exchanges are usually hilarious. The artistic and athletic performance that marks the climax of the film is beautiful. There are a few times when the situation is so surreal as to lose credibility and believability, but only a few. In the meantime the film sensitively explores questions of destiny, positive thinking. Cooper here shows a range of acting ability that he didn't need in comedies like "The Hangover" and "Wedding Crashers". Lawrence, incredibly, moves from her barely pubescent performance in "The Hunger Games" to acting opposite a man 16 years her senior, and miraculously she feels perfectly fitted for the task.

Lincoln. Historical Drama ★★★ 1/2 (Good-Great)
Daniel Day-Lewis gives a magisterial performance in Spielberg's new "Amistad" (1997). The sixteenth president is exactly as I always imagined him: self-possessed, sharply intelligent, approachable, powerful. The film moves back and forth between the epic and the personal, conveying both the critical historical juncture belonging to late nineteenth century Washington, as well as the intimate moments between Lincoln and his wife, sons, African-American soldiers, servants, and fellow politicians. What is essentially a two-and-a-half hour long West Wing episode goes by in a flash. I am no history buff so I cannot say to what degree the film is faithful to history, but I can say that it is faithful to American memory of it. What Spielberg clearly hoped to achieve in "War Horse" (2011), namely, a dramatic tribute to our collective interpretation of Lincoln, the civil war and the abolition of slavery, is achieved here. The final moments of the film should have been handled more deftly -- little screen time is given to the reaction of the President's family, and makes his death a rather cold and lackluster event. Spectacular supporting roles by Sally Field (Mary Todd Lincoln), Tommy Lee Jones (Thaddeus Stevens) and David Strathairn (Secretary of State Seward), all worthy of Oscar nominations. John Williams, too, for yet another flawless soundtrack. This film the inspirational powerhouse that "War Horse" could never be. Skip "Vampire Hunter".

Movie-going in 2012

2012 is almost over. Again I find myself thinking ahead to the Oscars. Again I'm considering reviewing a couple dozen films with the hopes of better remembering the ones I've seen and evaluating them in a more critical light. And again, I find that I've missed many interesting films, and chosen to ignore even more.

Please take this opportunity to inform me if I should skip a film on my "to see" list, or see a film on my "to skip" list. I value your opinion!

Movies I've seen	Movies I'd like to see	Movies I'm going to skip
Woman in Black Casa de Mi Padre Jeff, Who Lives at Home Cabin in the Woods Moonrise Kingdom Prometheus Magic Mike Amazing Spider-Man Dark Knight Rises Bourne Legacy Premium Rush Looper Argo Cloud Atlas Skyfall Silver Linings Playbook Licoln Les Misérables The Dictator Hope Springs  Beast of the Southern Wild Monsieur Lazhar Sinister Men in Black 3	Man on a Ledge Zero Dark Thirty The Kid with a Bike The Master The Secret World of Arrietty Django Unchained It's Such a Beautiful Day Marley Deep Blue Sea Holy Motors This Is Not a Film Chronicle Best Exotic Marigold Hotel Life of Pi The Man with the Iron Fists Killing Them Softly Dredd	Devil Inside Ghost rider: Spirit of vengeance The Lorax 21 Jump Street Hunger Games Wrath of the Titans Pirates! Band of misfits Avengers Snow White and the Huntsman Madagascar 3 Rock of Ages Brave Madea's Witness Protection Plan Ted Ice Age: Continental Drift The Watch Diary of a Wimpy Kid Total Recall The Campaign Odd Life of Timothy Green Expendables 2 ParaNorman Anna Karenina Resident Evil: Retribution Frankenweenie Pitch Perfect Taken 2 Here Comes the Boom Paranormal Activity 4 Man with the Iron Fists Twilight: Breaking Dawn 2 Hitchcock The Hobbit

Film in 2011 (Part 3)

     Behold! the final six movie reviews of 2011, a comparative chart of all eighteen reviews for your convenience, and my predictions for the Academy Awards this weekend. If you missed the last six, you're welcome to check them out.
     Despite my tireless efforts, I still missed several key nominees - Albert Nobbs, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Transformers, Harry Potter Part Sixty Three - and I never did review The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, although in my opinion, it was entirely redundant - it didn't have anything to add to the 2009 Swedish iteration - so why talk about it?
     Let me state once for the record that my rating system is somewhat unusual and I leave a lot of room at the top so as to properly distinguish the merits of true classics. For more information, go here.
     Did I mention spoilers? There will be some small ones. Ok, here we go.

     A Separation. ★★★★★ (an Iranian drama and an all-time classic) It's rare that a soap opera-styled story over two hours long will keep you on the edge of your seat, but this one succeeds, and with gusto. Acting so heartfelt and camera work so transparent it feels like a documentary. The narrative seamlessly weaves together intra-familial conflict with inter-familial conflict, judicial law with Shariah law, religious piety with filial loyalty. It keeps you guessing as to who is telling the truth, and where each character's motivations truly lie. That this film was filmed and produced in Iran is a testimony to the true creative potential of a people stereotypically unimaginative and bound by censorship. It is an true opportunity to be told a story like this from a native storyteller, and I guarantee you, you will consider in depth a side of the Muslim middle east you never even knew existed. The Western world could watch a hundred more and still not possess the sympathy and understanding our fellow human beings across ocean and desert deserve. But it's a start. Nominations: Best foreign language film, Best original screenplay.

     Midnight in Paris. ★★★ 1/2 (a drama deserving widespread acclaim) I am a lover of France, its language, culture, and the streets and places of Paris. I am also a lover of literature, poetry, and art in general. This Woody Allen film was an unexpected delight. Owen Wilson, whose acting is always somewhat surreal, fits well in the City of Light. He plays Gil, a nostalgic American writer, who climbs into a magic motorcar and escapes to 1920s France. The material is treated lightly and it's a joy to watch Gil begin to realize his true passions. We play the spectator with him as he interacts with the intellectual cusp of bygone eras and meet great authors firsthand, before the world deigned to pronounce them great, and we chuckle at the audacity of the situation, as we are meant to. We watch Gil stumble around in a life he shouldn't be living, slowly gaining the understanding and confidence he needs to break out. The music keeps the wool over our eyes and we, too, don't want to leave this magical world - but in the end, we must, and hopefully we, like Gil, recognize the tragic necessity of embracing our own world instead of pining for an illusion. Nominations: best picture, best director, best original screenplay, best art direction.

     The Help.  ★★★ (a drama deserving some acclaim) This is a bit of a tear-jerker. Emma Stone plays Skeeter Phelan, a recent graduate returning to Mississippi to care for her sick mother as she attempts to establish a career in writing and reconnect with her uppity troupe of well-to-do ladies. Seeing her old world through new eyes, she discovers the untold story of the black maids as they daily bear the brunt of racial prejudice, still at almost full force in the 1960s. Stone has her moments but in general was a questionable choice for first billing. Thankfully she is surrounded by an exceptional supporting cast, including Davis and Spencer, who carry the story as the featured maids, Aibileen and Minny. Also doing a fantastic job is Chastain, who plays a small-town girl trying unsuccessfully to live as a proper southern lady. That the story centers around the publication of a book is an unworthy frame to the real drama of these women and their true stories. As the civil rights movement unfolds before them on the television, we see them caught between two worlds and attempting to survive, yet pining for that basic human dignity almost in their grasp - and we long for them to finally take hold. Nominations: Best picture, Best actress (Viola Davis), Best supporting actress (Jessica Chastain), Best supporting actress (Octavia Spencer).
    Crazy. Stupid. Love. ★★ (a comedy probably worthy of a single viewing) I watched this film with French dubs and English subs so I can't comment on the acting. Suffice it to say that the plot is what makes this comedy great. There's one particular scene near the end where everything comes to light, and it's one of the most hilariously written in recent history. The transformations of our leading characters are fairly sudden but feel reasonably authentic - after all, love has been known to make those involved seem decidedly pathetic, as Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling) confesses. Sadly, the Gosling/Carrell subplot, blessed with the movie's most talented comedic and dramatic actors, falls flat. Chalk it up to an over-used storyline. Still, though the build-up is slow, the ending is worth the wait. I might even pull it out again next Valentine's Day.  Nominations: none.

     Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. ★★ (a drama probably worthy of a single viewing) The story explores the emotional heartache of the families who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks. The central figure, stricken with Asperger Syndrome (or mild autism), in an attempt to rid himself of the pain and guilt of his loss, goes on what is essentially a scrap-booking quest through the five boroughs of New York City. Thomas Horn, the actor, really does suffer from Asperger's, which explains the credibility of his performance. Surprisingly the voice and idiosyncrasies borne from his disability render him the perfect everyman to represent the people of NYC. Alas, his quest is rather boring and unrealistic, and we discover at the end it was, actually, even more so than we'd thought along the way. Further, the same conclusion robs the story of its emotional force by effectively saying everything outright, just in case you weren't paying attention along the way. It felt cheap. So did his mother's acting. She is a completely uninspired character. So if you want to get inside an autistic boy's head, read Mark Haddon. And if you want to get incredibly close to the Twin Towers, go visit the memorial and museum at Ground Zero. This movie almost had both, and it's a shame it didn't end up delivering on either. Nominations: best picture, best supporting actor (von Sydow)

     War Horse. ★ 1/2 (a drama of negligible aesthetic and moral value) This review was written before the second half because it was already clear it wasn't going to say or do anything else. Here's my big question. How can a film be nominated for Best picture when the story is dull and the acting is terrible? Answer? Get Spielberg to direct it. With few exceptions, the actions or words don't feel like they belong in any reality other than the instinctual imagination of a director whose best days have come and gone. Sure, some of the equestrian-centered scenes are beautifully breathtaking, but that's not what makes a movie. Every line feels scripted and and mini-moral unto itself. Not once did I feel convinced that any of the characters would actually give two shits about the equine. Every character is a type and every element of plot rehashed from greater stories of long ago. Black Stallion. Black Beauty. It's as if actors were chosen for looks rather than ability and then told to move and speak as if they were on a multi-million dollar film set. To make matters worse, the story centers on the English at war with the Germans, and alternates starring cheerful peasants and fearless soldiers. And if you guessed that the German officers are heartless and the English are warm and laid-back - you'd be right. This is a film destined to say nothing because everything's already been said and everyone involved in its production knows it. I don't mind old-fashioned, but - think The Actor - even something looking old should say something new. Well. At least it's pretty. Nominations: Best picture, Best cinematography, four more. 

COMPARATIVE CHART

Title	Genre	Rating	Noms.
A Separation	Foreign Drama	★★★★★	2
Hugo	Family Drama	★★★★1/2	11
Tree of Life	Modern Drama	★★★★	3
Mid. in Paris	Modern Drama	★★★1/2	4
The Artist	Silent Drama	★★★1/2	10
Descendants	Adult Drama	★★★1/2	5
The Help	Adult Drama	★★★	4
Moneyball	Sports Drama	★★★	6
Young Adult	Modern Drama	★★★	0
Drive	Adult Action	★★★	1
Ides of March	Political Drama	★★1/2	1
Bridesmaids	Comedy	★★1/2	2
Crazy.S.Love	Comedy	★★	0
Extremely Loud	Modern Drama	★★	2
Super 8	Family Thriller	★★	0
Rango	Children's Animated	★★	1
Adjustment B.	Drama/Thriller	★1/2	0
War Horse	Drama/Action	★1/2	6

MY PREDICTIONS

Award	My choice	Winner
Best picture	Hugo	The Artist
Best director	Terence Malick (The Tree of Life)	Michael Hazanavicius (The Artist)
Best actor	Jean Dujardin (The Artist)	Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
Best actress	?	Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)
Best supporting actor	?	Chris Plummer (Beginners)
Best supporting actress	Octavia Spencer (The Help)	Octavia Spencer (The Help)
Best original screenplay	A Separation	Midnight in Paris
Best adapted screenplay	Hugo	The Descendants
Best foreign film	A Separation	A Separation

 Who cares about the other awards, right? And anyway, in most of the other categories I didn't see many nominees - or any, in some cases.

Film in 2011 (Part 2)

     The 84th Academy Awards are awarded in two weeks. This year I've decided to attempt to watch the Oscars with an awareness of the nominees, and my own set of expectations. However, since there are about twenty films of interest nominated for important awards, I've definitely got my work cut out for me.
     I've already seen and discussed six titles up for nominations (or not). Here are my personal reviews of six more. I've seen all these films exactly once and have not read any professional reviews to inform my opinion. "It's all me," in the words of Mr. Kruger.
     The final set of six I plan to review before February 26 are War Horse, The Help, Midnight in Paris, The Muppets, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, and A Separation. I'm working on it. I'll also include my own nominations (and predictions). Stay tuned for this final installment.

     The Tree of Life. ★★★★ (a drama deserving universal acclaim) During a recent interview, Daily Show host Jon Stewart told Brad Pitt, "I've seen it five times and still have no idea what it's about." Well, I do, and I plan to revisit it in more depth in the near future. Basically it's somewhere between Steinbeck's East of Eden and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Its subject matter is as ambitious as its title, and it's too bad that will make it inaccessible to most of the people who have seen it. Its dramatic and endless montages will confuse viewers and make them uncomfortable; its scrutiny into the truth of the 1950s American Dream lifestyle will leave them morose and disillusioned. For me, it became gripping with a small act of defiance, and after that I was sitting on the edge of my seat. Between this movie and Hugo, I'm starting to expect children to possess the acting skills their roles deserve (and soon I will wish I was unfettered from this foolish dream). Spectacular performances from all leading roles. Beautiful cinematography depicting the natural environment, which is intended simultaneously as fact and marvel, given the film's message. Grace beats nature, we're told in the opening. Keep that in the forefront of your mind and you won't stray far from the point of it all. Nominations: best picture, best director, best cinematography.

     The Artist. ★★★ 1/2 (a drama deserving widespread acclaim) My opinion here doesn't matter much, since I've never seen an actual silent movie from the early twentieth century. I'd think I'd need to, if I wanted to fully appreciate what French director Hazanavicius is doing. At the same time, most modern viewers probably haven't seen a single silent film, either, so we're all in the same boat. I was impressed at how well the story was told without hearing the characters speak. I was also impressed at the ways in which the story plays with the concept of silence, especially how it's used as a window into the eroding psyche of the title character. The acting was impeccable and the climax will have you second-guessing your better judgment. And I'll never forget that exploding feather. In terms of what it was trying to achieve it was undoubtedly successful, although personally it doesn't suit my tastes - I am and will remain happily addicted to sound. Nominations: best picture, best director, best original screenplay, best actor (Dujardin), best supporting actress.

     Moneyball. ★★★ (a drama deserving some acclaim) I love sports movies and I loved this one. It's a feel-good film, a story of doubt followed by success, with a few water coolers thrown across the room in between for good measure. Not to mention it's based on a true story, which for me is a bright red cherry on top. Solid acting. Jonah Hill's ability in this regard has grown so much since Superbad, and Brad Pitt deserves some sort of extra award for starring in two very different movies that both deserve such high acclaim. As his character struggles with ongoing defeat both in past and present, we find that we too want his luck to finally change. The irony is that his method isn't supposed to leave anything to chance. The best scene, though, is one in which he's haggling and bluffing to buy or trade for undervalued players. Nominations: best picture, best actor (Pitt), best supporting actor (Hill), best adapted screenplay, 2 more.

     The Ides of March. ★★ 1/2 (a drama probably worthy of several viewings) Good writing made great by strong acting all around. Still, for the first hour, this film is nothing more than a glorified West Wing episode. Politicking on the phone, walking in pairs while hammering out polling data and strategies, the candidate's choice to be honest or cunning. Then the heat's turned up, and by the final scene you are face to face with the inherent corruption everyone playing the political game confronts. In this regard, Ides is a tale of defeat, but one in which the viewer is not allowed to judge too harshly - reminiscent of The Flaming Lips' opening track on At War with the Mystics, "The Yeah Yeah Yeah Song (With all your Power)". The movie doesn't bite off more than it can chew. In this regard it almost feels as if it was produced independently, and might even pass as such if it were stripped of its glossy finish and all-star cast. A particularly suitable film to see before the Republican presidential nomination is decided this summer. Nominations: best adapted screenplay.

     Bridesmaids. ★★ 1/2 (a comedy funny for several viewings) The Hangover for the ladies. Well, not nearly as over the top. This film needed some tightening - two hours is a bit much - but you won't regret spending an evening watching a psychopathic maid of honor reach rock bottom. Funny, especially Melissa McCarthy, who plays the equivalent of the "Alan Garner," and is equally revolting and obnoxious. While all the characters and their interweaving relationships are fairly stereotyped, I didn't find it jarring, since the characters don't take themselves too seriously, either. A good comedy needs to be consistent in this respect. You'll love, pity, and despise the women who populate the screen, but more than anything, you'll be eagerly anticipating the next hilarity. Nominations: best supporting actress (McCarthy).

     Super 8. ★★ (a thriller perhaps worthy of a single viewing) Proof that it's always dangerous to cast children in lead roles. These ones are better than, say, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, but not good enough to make me care about what happens to them. The scary parts aren't scary enough, the sappy parts don't quite hit home, the funny parts fall flat. Is it supposed to be a real disaster flick or just a light-hearted imitation of one? The director, J. J. Abrams (Cloverfield, TV show Lost), can't seem to decide. The film works best before everything goes crazy, but the actors struggle to express an appropriate sense of fear and frustration. They're too comfortable with an extremely dangerous and utterly foreign situation. The mysterious accident that starts the movie moving and the strange disappearances that pepper the opening act keep you guessing, but others seem awkward and unclear as to their significance (e.g. dogs fleeing en masse for dozens of miles). The best part is during the closing credits, when you finally get to see the film you've really been waiting for. And that one does not disappoint. Shortlisted for best visual effects.

Film in 2011 (Part 1)

     The 84th Academy Awards are awarded in twenty days. This year I've decided to attempt to watch the Oscars with an awareness of the nominees, and my own set of expectations. However, since there are about twenty films of interest nominated for important awards, I've definitely got my work cut out for me.
     I'll post additional installments by the end of February to complete the picture. Until then, here are the six 2011 films I have seen, in descending order of quality:

     Hugo. ★★★★ 1/2 (a family drama and an instant classic) You'd have to be in an terrible mood not to love this film. Especially suited for families and couples, and anyone else who's willing to get misty-eyed from a story about hope. There are several levels to the interpretation of the film, for those paying close attention. It's a rarity to see children who can act this well. It's surreal, to be sure, but intentionally so, and given it is a tribute to film-making, it could hardly be any other way. Scorsese's been working cinematic wonders for thirty years and this is no exception. See it in 3D if you can. The best new film I've seen for a long time, and that includes Toy Story 3. Nominations: best picture, best director, best adapted screenplay, best cinematography, 7 more (most nominated film of the year).

     Descendants. ★★★ 1/2 (a drama deserving widespread acclaim) George Clooney has the great talent that marks all top-tier actors - he acts with his eyes. Unfortunately for Clooney, it's his voice marks him as a celebrity hunk and he doesn't fit the role he's playing here. Maybe it would have been forgivable if the film didn't begin with his narrating the exposition. Other than that, and a few small sequences when the story dragged, everything about this movie was a success. Setting the story in modern Hawaii was refreshing. Even more memorable was the complex set of relationships between the four family members. The family felt as real as any fictional family could, and the crisis they managed brought them closer together. The end is touching. Nominations: best picture, best actor (Clooney), best director.

     Young Adult. ★★★ (a modern drama deserving some acclaim) This is certainly not a film that will appeal to the blockbuster crowd. However, the acting is exceptional and the story is compelling. The characters' motives are ambiguous, and intentionally so. Diablo Cody has clearly graduated from Juno to a subtler level of film-making that a sympathetic (albeit perhaps pretentious?) crowd will appreciate. If you saw Hugo and absolutely loved it, this film is the counterpart to take you back down to earth. Nominations: snubbed.

     Drive. ★★★ (an action movie deserving some acclaim) It's a good film, but I don't see what the big deal is. All my friends rave about it. As far as action flicks go, the plot is original and compelling. It's the characters I just find disappointing. I'm a big fan of Ryan Gosling, too. After watching it a second time, though, I don't think he gives a performance at the same level of his earlier work - Blue Valentine and Lars and the Real Girl come to mind. In fact, none of the characters possess much heart. Carey Mulligan and her kid are adorable but flat; the mobsters are equally two-dimensional. The whole thing reminds me of the male vocals on the indie album The xx - sounds great during the first spin, but the second time around there's nothing more to it. The great appeal of this film lies in its ability to go from 0 to 60 mph in about three-and-a-half seconds - much like the hot cars Gosling is seen pealing through the streets of L.A. Not just the gratuitous violence, but also Gosling's character, either a complete deadpan or screaming at people and killing them. The film's music and cinematography are reminiscent of a classic 1980s action flick, but for me, an homage to a classic genre of film does not, by itself, constitute a classic film. Nominations: best sound editing.
     Rango. ★★ (a children's animated film worthy of a single viewing) Beautiful animation. I was endlessly entertained by the wide assortment of desert critters employed to tell a story of the Old West. The strength of this film is its creativity. When squadrons of bat-riding gophers - chasing a water-cooler-laden wagon drawn by a panicked piglet - fly in shooting Gatling guns to the tune of Flight of the Valkyries - you're simply going to be mesmerized. However, as compelling as the world was, in terms of story, I was left wanting more. While the film sets itself up for a wonderful conclusion and simply doesn't deliver. The climax is quite simply nonsensical. First, the title character gets lucky and escapes his prison purely by accident. Then, the film's romantic storyline jumps three steps forward without any explanation. Finally, the villains are suddenly and inexplicably afraid of Rango and choose to bow out of a situation in which they could not possibly lose. The reason the story kept my attention for so long was my attempt to figure out how Rango could successfully beat the incredible odds stacked against him. Apparently the script-writer couldn't think of anything, either. Nominations: best animated feature.

     The Adjustment Bureau. ★ 1/2 (a drama and thriller with negligible aesthetic and moral value) The chase scenes are mediocre, the romance clichéd, and the pitiful absence of philosophic acuity lost my interest. In fact, I fell asleep for fifteen minutes. On the other hand, if you're only looking for a fun thriller with a feel-good moral at the end, check it out. Matt Damon's acting for the first thirty minutes is magisterial. After the action takes over, however, the character's values, ambitions and personality are completely eroded by an overwhelming love interest. This would have made a great drama. As it is, I want the two hours of my life back. Nominations: none! ha!
     2011 Films I wouldn't be opposed to seeing: Gnomeo & Juliet, Water for Elephants, Thor, X-Men: First Class, Winnie the Pooh, Captain America: The First Avenger, Cowboys & Aliens, The Help, The Adventures of Tintin, War Horse.
     2011 Films I intend to never watch: The Green Hornet, Fast Five, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, The Hangover Part II, Green Lantern, Bad Teacher, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Zookeeper, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II, The Smurfs, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

Blue Valentine

     Between reading Catch-22, Sinclaire's The Jungle, rereading Updike's Rabbit series, watching The Decalogue, and today enjoying a second view of Blue Valentine (2011), it's not been a particularly uplifting season in terms of my more cultured pursuits. With respect to love, that is. I almost think I'm subconsciously gravitating toward the theme of unfulfilled relationships to counterbalance the seemingly unreal utopia of my own (and the danger of all long-distance relationships).
     Valentine's Day is only eleven days away. This is my last chance at not being sappy for a while.
     Here's a poem I wrote in response to today's film of choice. Warning - it's in keeping with the pretty gruesome overtones of its inspiration. Viewer discretion is advised. (I hadn't written a really dark poem in ages. It was very refreshing.)

Blue Valentine

Come to me, sing to me
Blue valentine
A lover's night alone awaits
Blue valentine

The crumbling, sinking smell
Of a tomb past its prime
Deep within its darkness lay
A coddling pantomime

My celibate endeavor
Lasted nigh until the throng
Of angelic voices splitting
The world with their song

I tumbled, thinking only
Of sailing t'ward pink skies
My wake did hail the twilight
And sunder social ties

This stuttering skunk - turned
Prayerful caretaker - stared
Unblinking, stammered
Four words dared,
Made a laird;
Unprepared,
Erred

Oh me, oh my
Blue valentine
None told me love could lie
Oh me, oh my
Sweet valentine
The end I feigned descry

Monogamy now trivial
For others smell our sweat
Slinking softly round the camp
A perpetual threat

Come one! Come all!
See a show of mirthless sin
Here ye! There ye!
The pandering's to begin

Soon the charade is done
Masks broken in the mud
Our eyes meet, lock and
Disdain begins to bud

You've nothing left for me
I resist stubbornly
All for the family
Love's the key
Absently
We plea
Thee

But
My gut
The door's shut
So run
Just run away, away
From the mirage
Be free
Life start
Over
Oh me
Oh my and stop

                                    the

                                                       song

The Decalogue (1989): Promise-keeping

     The Decalogue (1989, released on DVD in 2000) is a series of ten hour-long films, each representing one of the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament. Directed by Krzyztof Kieślowski and filmed in Polish, the collection explores a modern interpretation of the words Moses received from God on Mount Sinai, so the story goes.
     You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
     The second film explores the issue of the oath, vow, promise, or more generally speaking, the contractual "statement of intent." Contrary to popular opinion, the second commandment does not condemn foul language ("Jesus, that hurts!") nor is it so narrow as to only apply to judicial hearings ("Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"). Rather it is an invective of the rather sorry state of the human condition from prehistorical times right up until the present day, characterized by the making of promises one has no intention of keeping.
     For example, last week I told someone at church I would call him before today (Sunday) to let him know if our Sunday School class was canceled. It was. I called him Friday afternoon, left a message on his voice-mail telling him the class was, in fact, canceled, and entered the weekend with a clear conscience. I kept the second commandment.
     On the other hand, last summer when I was interviewed for a teaching position at a local high school, the principal told me he would call me and let me know his decision. After a couple weeks of fretting and pacing, I finally realized the man had no intention of calling me. That was just something interviewers say, in order to avoid an awkward or unpleasant telephone call, but at great expense to my own peace of mind over the course of a couple months, at first due to my growing but ever uncertain feeling that I hadn't landed the position, and afterward because I was mad at my interviewer (and our culture) for being so casually dishonest. He broke the second commandment.
     I want to live in a society where a person's word is her bond. As Jesus taught during his Sermon on the Mount,
     Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
     Jesus lived in a culture where there were "little oaths" and "big oaths," "small promises" and "real promises." If you swore by Jerusalem or by heaven or by my head, it was a biggie, and if you should not carry through on the intention you communicated, you were in trouble with the Man Upstairs. Traditionally, Christianity has followed suit and made a distinction between promises and oaths, only the latter being taken as binding.
     In characteristically sage fashion, Jesus sweeps all of that nonsense away. If you tell someone you're going to do something, you should do it. Period. If you let your words fall without meaning - or if a community should fall into that same habit - you've lost something that makes you human, and you've added a destructive element to the world's composition. Shame on you.
     There's one exception to the rule. If something ridiculously serious takes you by surprise, you shouldn't be held accountable to your promises. For example, if I told a friend I'd pick them up at the airport tomorrow at 8:00 PM, and at 7:00 PM I get a call that my wife died, I'm sure, even if I forgot to text my friend that I'd be unable to fulfill my responsibility that evening, that when they found out what had happened, they would immediately and unconditionally forgive me. Only a completely unreasonable person would be disappointed that I had not still managed to follow through with my pledge.
      Of course, not every situation where breaking a promise "makes sense" is as dire as the situation I describe. The Hadith teaches that if a Muslim makes a promise but then is confronted by something better to do, he should do the better thing, and afterward make atonement for what was left undone. For example, if I ask someone to meet with me at a certain time, but then I find out I need to spend an extra hour grading my students' assignments, I should ask for forgiveness, and... what else? I'm not sure.
     After watching only the first two episodes of The Decalogue, I'm fully convinced that I've underestimated the universal and timeless significance of the Ten Commandments. I think the second commandment was targeting a ubiquitous ailment that poisons human relationships at all levels, whether between strangers, colleagues, or friends, whether between child and parent, spouses, or employer and employee.
     And thus, my question to you, reader, is simple. How important is your word? Do you make promises so casually that you can't keep track of them all? Do you have your excuses lined up, like I do? I was just so busy I forgot. Something came up. I meant to. You should have e-mailed me. You should have reminded me. And so on. Shame on us all. Together, let's pledge right now to find ways to break that awful habit and be known as people on whom others can rely without worry.
     Amen! (Heb. "So be it")