Movie Review: The Men Who Stare At Goats (2009)

As far as absurdist comedies go, The Men Who Stare at Goats is better than most.  It doesn't reach the echelon of truly great like The Big Lebowski or Annie Hall, but manages to be an entertaining movie throughout.

Although the story bounces around a lot, the basic frame is as follows:  Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) is a down-on-his luck journalist.  His wife has just left him for his editor and his job isn't exactly fulfilling, so he decides that a drastic shake-up is needed.  Thus, he decides to go to the Middle East as a war correspondent.  It's there that he meets Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), who claims to be a former member of an elite group of psychic soldiers known within the military as "Jedi."

Told as a mix of contemporary dialogue between Wilton and Cassady and flashbacks detailing the rise of the psychic soldiers, the film relies on the performance of its actors.  Fortunately, everyone is up to the task.  McGregor plays a terrific "slightly off-balanced straight man."  Clooney builds upon his strong performance in Burn After Reading, although this time his character is less paranoid and more delusional.

In addition to the leads, both Jeff Bridges, in a role that bears remarkable similarities to his performance as "The Dude" in The Big Lebowski, and Kevin Spacey, in a role that is disappointingly one-dimensional, provide strong performances, although their characters aren't nearly as strong as either Clooney of McGregor's.

Unfortunately, the first half of The Men Who Stare at Goats is so funny and original that the second half feels like a let down.  What starts as a comedy about the absurdity of the military funding a unit of psychic soldiers turns into a slightly bored war melodrama, and the jokes start coming fewer and farther between.  It never dips into the realm of being unwatchable or even truly boring, but I was hoping for more out of the end.  Perhaps the fault of first time director Grant Heslov (who did help co-write Good Night, and Good Luck with Clooney) or relatively inexperienced screenwriter Peter Straughan (whose largest credit so far has been How to Lose Friends and Alienate People), but the movie definitely needed a change in pacing.

Although spreading the drama and comedy more evenly throughout the film would've made it a better film overall, The Men Who Stare at Goats is still a worthwhile film.  The first of three high-profile movies for Clooney this holiday season (with Fantastic Mr. Fox scheduled for a Thanksgiving release and Up in the Air scheduled to come out on Christmas) and possibly the least hyped of the three, The Men Who Stare at Goats' quality definitely predicates a great year for Clooney.  Whether the quality of these three films turns into box office returns or merely critical acclaim remains to be seen, but it's definitely going to be a great year for Clooney.


Rating:  8/10

Movie Review: The Accidental Husband (2008)

I didn’t expect a lot from The Accidental Husband.  It was originally released in the United Kingdom in early 2008, but its United States release was suspended indefinitely when the distribution company, Yari Film Group, declared for bankruptcy in late 2008.  Thus, it was resurrected as a straight-to-DVD movie for US distribution, released November 10th.  Unfortunately, The Accidental Husband was not even able to meet my relatively meager expectations, and it stands as possibly the worst movie so far of 2009.

The story, what little there is, is riddled with clichés and illogical character actions.  Dr. Emma Lloyd (Uma Thurman) is a “relationship expert” who has her own radio show.  One night, she gives Sofia (Justina Machado) the advice to break off her engagement to Patrick (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) based on the results of an online compatibility test (yes, you read that right).  To get back at Emma, Patrick decides to have his neighbor’s son, who also happens to be an unbelievably proficient computer hacker, to hack into the national registry and make Patrick and Emma “married” so he can teach her a thing or two about relationships.  This, obviously, does not sit well with Emma or her fiancé, Richard (Colin Firth).

The story only manages to go downhill from there.  The characters act in unbelievably ridiculous ways, adding lie upon lie when it’s fairly obvious that if anyone decided to take two minutes to stop and think about things, they’d realize how stupid the situation is.  Add this to incredibly insipid dialogue, a Razzie worthy performance from Thurman (do they give Razzies to straight to DVD movies that may have actually been released the year before in other countries?), and absolutely unbearable music that would seem hamfisted in a children’s movie, and it’s not hard to see why the theatrical release of The Accidental Husband was never resurrected. 

The more I try to find a redeeming value in The Accidental Husband, the more I seem to come up short.  I feel bad for Colin Firth, who has been in much better movies and his screen time in this is almost non-existant.  His character is so underwritten I forgot about him when he wasn’t on the screen, which may be to Firth’s benefit in the long term.  Jeffrey Dean Morgan, meanwhile, looks like an American Javier Bardem (same hair style, facial hair, etc) but without half the talent that Bardem brings to the screen.  Not that I would ever wish a movie so terrible upon Bardem...or any actor, for that matter.

I’m not the biggest fan of romantic comedies, but I can generally find at least a redeeming performance or scene in one.  Some even manage to be good despite the clichéd nature of the story (for an example of this, see I Could Never Be Your Woman).  The Accidental Husband, however, was absolutely horrible from beginning (with Thurman reading off romantic advice that is both dumb and unrealistic) to end (I can’t really discuss it without giving away the cliché conclusion, but it was painfully sappy). 

Although it’s only two movies, Thurman’s performances in both The Accidental Husband and My Super Ex-Girlfriend, another absolutely atrocious rom-com, would make me think twice about ever going to a romantic comedy starring Thurman again.  

Rating:  1/10 (I reserve zeroes for movies that are not only horrible but also truly offensive to my sense of decency.  At least The Accidental Husband didn’t do that.  I guess I do have something positive to say about it)

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