Movie Review: A Serious Man (2009)

The Coen brothers are masters at making both absurdly dark comedies and bleak dramas.  Although it’s tough to place at the onset, A Serious Man isn’t content to be a comedy or a drama.  Frequently oscillating between laugh-out-loud absurdity and increasingly complex dramatic torments, A Serious Man may not be the most cohesive Coen movie to date, but it nonetheless fits in well with the rest of the Coens’ impressive canon.

A Serious Man centers around Lawrence “Larry” Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a university professor who, to put things lightly, is encountering some faith-testing problems.  His wife is leaving him for his recently widowed friend, his kids are always fighting, and the committee in charge of judging his application for tenure may or may not be receiving disparaging letters regarding Larry’s credentials.  He also has to deal with neighbors who constantly give him menacing looks and the presence of “Uncle Arthur” (Richard Kind), who is having more luck draining his cyst and writing his statistical manifesto than finding a job.  Oh, and Larry’s rebellious son has a looming bar mitzvah.  Did I mention the student who’s attempting to blackmail Larry over a recent test score?  It may not be a quick moving film, but A Serious Man has a lot going on.

The cast, made up mostly of relative unknowns and background players, does a good job of keeping the material moving and no one really seems out of place or overmatched.  Stuhlbarg does a superb job of playing Gopnik, who is neurotic and troubled and doing his best not to break down, even in the face of a relative whirlwind of troubles coming his way.  Although probably far-fetched, it’s not completely out of the realm of possibilities that Stuhlbarg could even find himself with an Oscar nomination for his role.  The Coen brothers and the actors they direct are no strangers to Oscar nominations.

Even though it’s complex, A Serious Man is not overly confusing, at least not in the literal sense of knowing what is going on and who people are.  The Coens do a great job, both as writers and as directors, of making sure that the story, for all its endless piling on and taking away plot points, never becomes overwhelming.  In fact, I never really thought about how much was going on in A Serious Man until the credits started rolling and I began to think about how many points were left only semi-resolved.

Halfway through A Serious Man, a rabbi tells a story about a dentist.  The story is a few minutes long and ends up having more questions in it than answers.  In a way, this story is a microcosm of the movie’s plot as a whole:  The Coen’s didn’t forget to wrap up all their plotlines; on the contrary, they leave things purposefully ambiguous, knowing that they themselves don’t always have the answers to the questions they ask.

To some, the ending of A Serious Man will be frustrating and confounding.  In fact, it seemed that about three or four new ideas and situations were introduced in the last five minutes of the film, and many more from earlier on are never answered.  The movie chooses to end during the climax of all the preceding action instead of winding down and attempting to concretely settle every bit of plot.

I probably don’t know enough about the Jewish faith (or religion in general) to fully comprehend the metaphors and ideas that were present in A Serious Man.  What I do know is that the movie made me think and question many different things, and that’s something that I come to expect out of every movie the Coen brothers make. 

Rating:  9/10

Movie Review: Mr. Brooks (2007)

Kevin Costner has been accused in the past of being stiff and bland as an actor in roles where he isn’t playing an athlete.  Although the movie itself is riddled with holes and shaky logic, Mr. Brooks proves to be an ample showcase of Costner’s acting talents and is, overall, an enjoyable movie.

Costner plays Earl Brooks, Portland’s “Man of the Year,” business owner, and loving husband/father.  He also has a sinister alter ego, nicknamed Marshall, who drives Brooks to kill random people for what appears to be pure psycho-sexual thrills.  Instead of having Costner stand around and talk to himself, however, Marshall is played by the wonderfully creepy William Hurt, and although he appears everywhere, he is merely a physical representation of Brooks’ inner demons.

Mr. Brooks works because of the amazing chemistry between Costner and Hurt.  Costner has to play the restrained family man who just happens to also be a serial killer, which allows him to harness his “blandness” and, with just a slight tweak, turn it into a spot-on portrayal of an amazingly successful person who has to juggle his commitments to his family and business and his murderous impulses.  Hurt, who is often called upon to play someone with a screw or two loose, provides as expected and seems like the perfect person to play Marshall.  Together, Brooks and Marshall scheme, converse, and even argue like old friends.  It’s a testament to both actors’ abilities that they took a somewhat flimsy script and made it both believable and intriguing.
It’s a shame that the same can’t be said of the other performances in the movie.  Demi Moore plays Tracy Atwood, a stereotypical police detective, and even does that somewhat poorly.  I’ve never been a fan of Moore as an actress, and she doe absolutely nothing in Mr. Brooks to change my mind.  Meanwhile, Dane Cook plays “Mr. Smith,” an amateur photographer who witnesses one of Mr. Brooks’ murders and ends up trying to become Brooks’ friend and protégé.  Much like Moore, I’ve never been a fan of Cook’s previous movie roles (or his stand-up comedy, for that matter), but he does a serviceable job bringing a level of compassion and energy to Mr. Smith.

What’s most baffling about Mr. Brooks is the way the story is sequenced.  The strongest (and, coincidentally, most disturbing) scenes of the movie happen in the first hour, while the second hour is spent trying to wrap up the main story and the multiple side plots.  It ends up being a case of having too many storylines for a two-hour movie, and if one of the sub-plots had been axed from the final product Mr. Brooks would probably have been a great film.  Although it’s tough to decide which subplot lends the least to the movie, my vote is the storyline involving Brooks’ daughter.  Every scene with his daughter stalls the momentum of the movie, and the movie would still feel complete without it.  As much as I dislike the Moore’s police detective storyline, it’s necessary to develop a possible antagonist for Brooks, and thus much more difficult to cut from the movie and have it still feel cohesive.

Even with all of these problems, however, Mr. Brooks is a fairly enjoyable movie.  The directing and cinematography do an effective job of building genuine tension, and rarely rely on things jumping out at the viewer.  The movie is dark but glossy, which really seems to fit in well with Brooks’ personality.  The combined effect of Costner and Hurt’s amazing acting with effective directing rises Mr. Brooks a level above the dime-a-dozen thrillers that come to theaters every week, and although it isn’t a classic, it’s at least a fun ride.

Rating:  7/10

Movie Review: The Invention of Lying (2009)

Ricky Gervais is one of my favorite comedians.  The British version of The Office was extremely funny, Extras is perhaps the funniest British show I’ve ever watched, and Ghost Town was kept afloat by Gervais’ comic timing and dry wit.  Needless to say, I had high expectations for the new comedy starring and written by Gervais, The Invention of Lying.

The Invention of Lying tells a somewhat simple but ingenious story:  In a world where no one lies, Mark Bellison (Gervais) discovers the ability to lie.  Bellison, considered a loser by almost everyone, including himself, finds that the ability to speak “that which is not” can come in handy, both professionally and personally.

Unfortunately, The Invention of Lying takes a premise with nearly endless possibilities and manages to partially squander its potential.  That isn’t to say it isn’t good.  It is good, but it’s just not great.  Hilarious situations are introduced and then either go nowhere or disappear from the screen.  Hilarious cameos from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Edward Norton make one wish that their scenes had been twice as long as they were.

On the flip side, Tina Fey and Jonah Hill make brief appearances that do almost nothing to the plot, and their scenes either needed to be extended or cut from the film completely.  As is, they barely work.  Rob Lowe and Jennifer Garner both perform adequately in supporting roles, although neither of them takes full advantage of the material provided.

Ricky Gervais, however, is at his comic best.  He has always had great timing and a natural inclination of how to sell jokes, and in The Invention of Lying he has to do his fair share of selling jokes.  Unlike in Ghost Town, which was written by someone else, Gervais appears more comfortable when performing in something that he had a hand in writing.

The crux of whether you like or dislike this movie, however, is probably going to come down to one particular plotline.  Ricky Gervais has not been shy about approaching contentious subjects in the past.  In The Invention of Lying, this subject happens to be religion, which in America is a subject possibly more contentious than any other.  Although I don’t want to give away any of the jokes, I will say that The Invention of Lying falls of the side of the coin that says that religion is a man-made phenomenon.

I personally found the entire sequence to be the funniest part of the movie, but I can see how some people could be offended by the way The Invention of Lying tackles the ideas of both religion itself and religious faith.  The ad campaign for the movie completely ignored this aspect of the movie and its plot, and I have seen a few very negative reactions to The Invention of Lying solely resting on the religion sub-plot.

I personally wonder why the movie ends when it does.  It sets up Gervais’ sacrilegious argument, runs with it for a few minutes, and then the movie veers off and never goes any further than a couple of comments near the end of the movie that are pretty tame compared to what happens in the middle.  The extent to which it’s in The Invention of Lying is enough to offend those who will be offended by material of this ilk, and thus it seems somewhat odd that Gervais didn’t go any further with the material than he did.

The Invention of Lying is funny and, at times, flirts with greatness, but never is able to put the whole package together.  Maybe Ricky Gervais wasn’t quite sure how to make a movie for American audiences.  Maybe Gervais has softened his comedy to achieve a larger audience (although this seems unlikely given the religion aspect of the movie).  It is a small step up from Ghost Town, but not much of one.

Rating:  7/10

Movie Review: The Informant! (2009)

(As a note, I will not be using the "!" at the end of the film's title within the review. Too much grammatical hullabaloo for me, thank you very much).

Look at the poster for The Informant. Look at Matt Damon's mustache, the childlike bewilderment in his eyes, the painfully bright orange background, the giant letters spelling out the film's title. Although it tells you nothing directly about the movie, it's a great distillation of everything you'll find in The Informant minus any possible story/plot elements.

Although a movie about corporate corruption, The Informant takes a very unorthodox approach to telling the story. Although set in the early 1990's, director Steven Soderbergh has decided to wash everything in a 1970's orange glow and to tell us the time and place with giant 1970's lettering. Matt Damon, taking on the role of whistleblower/eccentric Mark Whitacre, sprinkles narration throughout, which may or may not have anything to do with what's actually going on in the movie at the time.

Sound confusing? For the first fifteen or twenty minutes, it's nearly impossible to really tell what's going on. Things happen, Whitacre gives random narration about corn, Japan and ideas for television shows. After deciding to tell an FBI agent (played, no less, by Scott Bakula) about his employer's corrupt price-fixing schemes, however, the movie picks up and doesn't let go until near the end.

In essence, the casting is what makes The Informant a success. Damon does an exquisite job as Whitacre, perfectly hitting that chord of seems-weird-but-can't-be-that-crazy-can-he that is necessary for the role. Bakula does a great job as the idealistic FBI agent who trusts Whitacre, even when it seems highly possible that Whitacre is going further and further off the deep end. Joel McHale, snarky commentator from "The Soup," plays Bakula's partner, and does a great job of making normal scenes absolutely hilarious (and shows off how he can stare at something for ten or fifteen seconds and not blink. Trust me, in the context of the movie, it might just be the funniest scene in the entire film).

Unfortunately, the story, which is based on true events, often seems rushed, as if a lot of expository information was left on the cutting room floor so that the movie could clock in at 108 minutes and not have to be cut into two films (Soderbergh's previous effort, Che). It doesn't derail the movie, but keeps it firmly in the realm of "very good" instead of "great."

Rating: 8/10

Music Review: Kid Cudi - The Man on the Moon (2009)

(I'm going to try going with shorter reviews for music than for movies. Let me know what you think).

Kid Cudi's debut album is a tough album to judge. On first listen, it paled in comparison to Cudi's mixtape work. The beats seemed sparse and unengaging, and Cudi's rapping seemed stale and, at times, bored. However, after listening through the album a couple of times, I realize it's actually a work of genius. An uneven, inexperienced work, but nonetheless has moments of greatness that point towards Cudi becoming something of a hero in both the worlds of hip-hop and of electronica and indie rock. Cudi's at his best when he's tackling issues close to his heart, like feeling out of touch with the world and being somewhat of a lost soul ("Soundtrack to My Life," "Day 'N' Night") and not when he's trying to weave sexual innuendo that's all too common in mainstream hip-hop ("Make Her Say"). His collaborations with indie rockers Ratatat and MGMT also come across as inventive and fresh, making me hope that, in the future, Kid Cudi decides to do more collaborations with indie rockers and lesser-known artists than with rap superstars (Kanye sounds surprisingly flat on "Maker Her Say").

Rating: 8/10
Standout Tracks: Day 'N' Night, Soundtrack to My Life, Alive (Nightmare)
Weak Links: Make Her Say, My World

Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Quentin Tarantino movies are often an enigma, a collection of hyper-violent images and self-indulgent homages to movies that most of the viewing public have never even heard of, much less seen. They are also, in the opinion of this reviewer, some of the greatest movies of the past twenty years.

Inglourious Basterds is neither as good as Pulp Fiction nor as overbloated as the Kill Bill duology (which was still a damn good set of movies). The most surprising thing about it is, outside of three or four scenes, it is much less about gratuitous violence and more about how people act and feel, playing out more like a European art film than an American action movie.

The best performance of the movie is easily Christoph Waltz's, and without his tour de force, Inglourious Basterds would most likely be the weakest film in the Tarantino canon. Waltz moves easily among English, French, German, and even a little Italian, and does so in a way that it seems effortless (and indeed it may be), and he infuses all of his scenes with a sense of black humor that slides in easily with Tarantino's writing.

In fact, Waltz's performance is so nuanced and well done that it's difficult to judge the other acting performances, as they all pale in comparison. Melanie Laurent does a good job as Shosanna, and she shows why she's one of the up-and-comers in the French movie scene. Brad Pitt does a serviceable as Southern redneck Aldo Raine, but it's not going to win him any awards.

The main complaints that can be leveled against Inglourious Basterds is that it A) is a little too long, with some scenes dragging on for a good 15 or 20 minutes, making the total length of the movie stand at over two-and-a-half hours and B) has a very poor marketing scheme, with many of the trailers focusing on the Brad Pitt storyline, which is NOT the main story arc, and doesn't prepare viewers for the long periods of quiet talking and tension building that makes up the bulk of the movie's time on the screen. This doesn't really effect how good the movie is, but has probably led to some of the more negative reviews of the film, as most people were expecting Pulp Fiction in a War Zone, which this movie most definitely is not.

We haven't reached Oscar-bait season yet, but as it stands, Inglourious Basterds is the best movie of 2009 so far (narrowly edging out Up), and stands a good chance of being one of the ten best movies at year's end.

Rating: 9/10

Sorry for the delay

Well, it's been a while since I've submitted any new reviews, mainly due to personal laziness/not having the time after moving to Syracuse. I'm going to try and submit reviews of a few films I've seen recently in the next few days, with the new philosophy of just focusing on a movie's pros and cons, and not including any plot rehashing that most reviews have (and that I've tried to include sometimes), mainly because these details are readily available on a lot of websites/TV trailers, and thus you probably don't need my rendition (unless, of course, it's something I either like/dislike about said movie.

Again, sorry for the wait, hope you all enjoy the new reviews!