Animal Kingdom: Compelling and involving crime thriller, hurt very slightly by a bland central performance. It wouldn't be such a big deal except that he is surrounded by a pitch-perfect supporting cast. Really though, his character was just too passive and uninteresting. If you look back at the great crime dramas, like Goodfellas and City of God, the reason why they're so memorable is because they have strong central performances that are interesting and relatable. The absence of such a character is really the only thing keeping Animal Kingdom from ascending to the rank of those films; the rest of it is as solid as you can get. 8/10.

Over the past few days...

Buried - 8/10

Saying what I didn't like would spoil it, but the good parts win out. Quite the tense and often inventive thriller.

A Bucket of Blood - 7/10

I rag on Roger Corman a lot (let's face it, the man made some shit movies), but this was a good one, a horror/comedy that enjoys a few healthy jabs at the art scene.

The Water Engine - 7/10

The dark side of the American Dream, as presented by David Mamet. It doesn't feel like the made-for-TV production that it was, as the great cast (William H. Macy, Joe Mantegna, John Mahoney, etc.) and well-tuned script have no difficulty helping the drama come alive.

Sightings: Heartland Ghost - 5/10

Mediocre to a fault. A nondescript, made-for-Showtime "haunted house" flick that I'm not even sure accomplishes the bare minimum when it comes to its characterizations or scares. Very dull, but harmless.

For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism - 8/10

Well-researched and insightful documentary about, well, American film criticism. It could've gone deeper, sure, though that's more of a personal thing -- the subject is so fascinating, I'd wanted a History Channel-sized epic by the time this movie's 80 minutes were up.

Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen - 4/10

The sort of painfully overdone slapstick crud that makes the work of Hal Needham and Richard Lester look positively restrained. There are very few bright spots (Peter Ustinov is a champ, and Roddy McDowall makes a great asshole butler), but it's a lot of noise that results in next to no laughs whatsoever.

Don't Open Till Christmas - 3/10

This must be what '80s-era Roger Ebert thought all slasher movies were like. Inept, devoid of suspense, and downright unpleasant to look at. No thought or thrills to speak of, just ultra-sleaziness that can't even be enjoyed on a campy level.

The King's Speech

On the press junket for Black Swan, Darren Aronofsky justified his heavy use of close-ups with the following words: "it allows an audience to sit in a dark room and stare into the eyes of a person who's emoting without being self-conscious." Film critic Jim Emerson sums up this fundamentally appealing aspect of cinema as "permission to stare." We get to look into the eyes of somebody who interests us without that person looking into ours.

I'm not sure how much I buy that from Black Swan, or from most other films in which the close-ups come fast and hard. But I buy it from The King's Speech. This movie is fascinated with the faces of the actors. To see them betray their inner lives through their stony expressions is a vindication for acting in close-up.

It is oddly wonderful that Rush's character is a stage actor of no great success, because his body language isn't half as interesting as his eyes. In an audition, he walks the right way and his hands make the appropriate affected moves, but it isn't remarkable and it's all the director is able to see. The nature of his charisma is too up close and personal to work onstage. And, of course, Firth is playing royalty. Big, sweeping gestures are out of the question for him. But look into his eyes and the whole story is right there. The source of the conflict is his stammering, which could very easily lead to unintentional comedy, but Firth is too good for that. His face colors the fragmented words with despair, frustration, puzzlement, and love.

That isn't to say that the film is only interesting for its talking heads. The actors are all the more interesting for the contexts in which they're filmed. If nothing else, the halls of royalty and the streets and homes of wartime Britain make for fascinating visuals. I wanted to clap during some shots, such as Firth on Rush's shabby sofa or Rush against the intricate wallpaper in his home, because they're so damned fascinating. I don't know if anybody else gets that way, but a well-crafted, well-chosen image positively makes me want to crow. It's the most joyous thing about movies.

My expectations for Blue Valentine and Exit Through the Gift Shop just keep going higher and higher. Not sure if that's a good thing.



I agree completely:
http://reelviews.net/reelviewsforum/viewtopic.php?p=75712#p75712

The bland sticks out so bad that I'm convinced that the "blandness" is a choice by the creators. Might be a good idea in theory but it ends up hurting the picture. Really good movie though. It's a much better Aussie movie than, say, Jindabyne (2006) which is the last movie that I watched (do I get any points for that segue?). Jindabyne comes from director Ray Lawrence whose previous picture, Lantana, is about as good as Animal Kingdom. Jindabyne is considerably worse, however. It takes as inspiration the Raymond Carver short story, So Much Water So Close to Home, which was apparently used to good effect in Robert Altman's Short Cuts. However, Lawrence seeks to do far too much with the material. Every character in the film has some sort of domestic issue not related to the main story. The movie also cannot decide if it wants to explore the moral implications of ignoring a dead body while fishing or if it wants to be a thriller. Throw in rascism and demon children from hell (not literally, but what kind of child would murder an animal and intentionally lets their best friend almost-drown?) and you have a film that is not only unfocussed but also quite bad. The acting (the always great Laura Linney in particular) saves this from being a horrid film though. I'd say avoid, but you could do worse if it's available for free and you have nothing else to do. 5/10.

I actually just finished watching Animal Kingdom and I was surprised by the rather deliberate pacing of the film. I expected a little bit more action but I'm satisfied and impressed with what the movie did deliver. Perhaps the pacing of the film is one of its biggest assets as it manages to sustain rather than dampen the tension in the movie. The sense of dread was rather thick in the air from the first frame and the violence was used sparingly but effectively; when someone gets shot in this movie, it'll jolt the hell out of you. I also appreciated the acting including the lead's performance (apparently more than most of you did that saw the film); from my perspective, his low-key approach wasn't besides the point; it was the point. I'd be happy to discuss this further but for now, I don't wanna pad this post up unnecessarily.

As for other movies I've seen recently, oh wow, there were lots: Winter's Bone, The Town, The Social Network, The Kids Are All Right, Scott Pilgrim, Inception, probably some others in there that I failed to mention, all of which were worth seeing at least once, with The Social Network being the easy standout in this group.

Night Moves ** 1/2
An interesting premise ultimately goes nowhere in this character drama/thriller, starring Gene Hackman. Hackman plays football star turned private eye who doesn't like his job, and who ends up involved in a convoluted story angle involving a rich couple and their rebellious, runaway daughter. James Woods (in one of his earlier performances) pops up in a smaller supporting role. I wish I liked this one more but I don't.

Terror in a Texas Town ** 1/2
I liked this one more than my star rating indicates, and I'd recommend watching it (it's available through Netflix's streaming). Sterling Hayden plays a Scandinavian whaler who comes to inherit his father's farm, only to find that a wealthy, corrupt oil baron (Sebastion Cabot) wants it, and has hired an old gunman (Nedrick Young) to ensure that he gets it. This is a quirky western, from its structure (the flash forward at the beginning, a technique that became popular 50 years later) to the performances (Young seems to be channeling Humphry Bogart), to its climactic battle. It's interesting the whole way through, and while definitely a B-grade western, is an enjoyable B-grade western.

Checked out Seijun Suzuki's entertaining Youth of the Beast. Here's what's written on the Netflix sleeve:



The rest of the sleeve reveals some important plot details so I'll leave the good stuff omitted but... surreal? Go-go dancers? Bizarre imagery?

That quoted sentence is so mistaken I wondered, after the movie (92 breezy minutes!), if they'd actually bothered to watch the film before offering up that description. The film isn't at all surreal, it's not so much 60s-flavored as taken directly from the mold of American noir, and there wasn't a damned go-go dancer or bizarre image in sight.

What we get is the medium-boiled tale of Jo Mizuno, disgraced detective fresh out of prison, set to find the men responsible for his friend/ex-partner's death. He joins one faction of the Yakuza, makes friends, and then joins a separate faction to do the same. You see, he wants revenge and he'll do anything (prostitutes! sadistic crime boss! heroin!) in order to catch his friend's killer.

Suzuki has got style to burn but he uses it to spare effect (one scene, in a sound-proof room, was particularly well-executed) in order to tell the ol' American black-and-white tale of yor in brilliant color with enough violence, profanity, and nudity to make it 1963's version of the penny dreadful tale. I guess that's what they meant by "broke the mold". Very simple story, lots of double-crossing and action, done in damned entertaining fashion. Recommended, quietly, for its beautiful photography and dedication to making a b-movie story as expensive as possible. KABOOM!

EDIT: The title, which may or may not be an accurate translation of the original Japanese title, apparently refers to Jo. He's "the youth" and "the beast" is a host of other things. I much prefer the original US title of The Brute as it spares the poetry in favor of what we actually get: badass violence and merciless thuggery.

You Don't Know Jack

This is HBO's dramatized profile about Jack Kevorkian in his "Dr. Death years." It is something of a whirlwind tour of all the newsworthy events, which doesn't even pretend to play fair with the assisted suicide controversy. That said, the enterprise is helped along greatly by a shockingly impressive cast of actors. The number one name: Al Pacino, in a very credible performance as the man himself.

Encounters at the End of the World ***
If you didn't tell me this was a Warner Herzog film, and if you replaced Herzog's German accent with an American, I'd still have guessed that Herzog was behind this interesting documentary on scientists and science at the South Pole. Like much of Herzog's work, he is simultaneously awed by nature and nonplussed by humanity. The South Pole is a pretty crazy place. This one is available on Netflix streaming until the 22nd.

No one mangles Herzog titles around yours truly. The movie you saw is Encounters at the End of the World

Doh! I mean...of course it was

Rabbit Hole (2010) is adapted from a Pulitzer prize winning play of the same name. Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart play the married couple whose 4 year old son was killed in a car accident 8 months prior. This is a good movie. Many stage adaptations feel, um, stagey in movie form (I'm looking at you Sleuth) but for the most part this avoids the trappings. The story is nothing revolutionary but it feels real and raw. The acting ranges from decent to very good and is probably the highlight of the film. I have to say that I too mourned a little while watching this. Nicole Kidman was one of the most beautiful and gifted actresses in Hollywood but years of plastic surgery have reduced her facial features to a cypher. Her character deals with the loss by closing up emotionally (she always plays an ice-queen well) but in those scenes where she has to emote I was less than convinced. Yes, those are tears, but it's very sad when the most expressive part of an actor are the muscles in their neck. Her co-star, Aaron Eckhart, will never be known as a dramatic heavyweight but he acquits himself well here and is arguably the better of the two leads. James Berardinelli finds the actor's "blow-up" to be over-the-top but I thought it was among the best moments in the film. Dianne Wiest winning a lot of praise for her supporting role is something I find confusing. Ms. Wiest is always fantastic and this role is no different than her seemingly countless other performances.

There are a few curious decisions that don't aid the picture. The young man responsible for the son's death is "angelicized" a little too much for my liking. It's good that he's not characterised as a troubled child or a drunk, but a few character flaws would not have hurt. In one crucial scene he admits that he was speeding. "Finally!" I thought. Yes, he admits that he "might" have been driving 31 (maybe even 32!) in a 30 zone. Ms. Kidman, on the other hand, slaps women (okay, one woman) in the supermarket and falls asleep (and remains sleeping overnight) behind her wheel in a strange neighbourhood. Mr. Eckhart, meanwhile, tells prospective buyers of his house about his dead son and, especially, that he still "feels" him in the house. I don't think that "haunted" is as attractive an option to buyers as double sinks or an open floor plan are.

Nevertheless, major nitpicking aside, Rabbit Hole is a good film. I'm a little frustrated over some of the choices made because this could have been a great film. Certain scenes are like the cliched punch to the gut so it's especially frustrating that the entire film is not up to the same standard. A high 7/10.

In the past couple of days...

Americathon - 4/10

Y'know, I know that the filmmakers were getting at, but the satire fell flat on its face, and, aside from maybe a couple times when I smirked a little, so did the jokes. For a flick that puts forth so much energy, it's an incredibly dull sit.

House of the Long Shadows - 5/10

Vincent Price, Peter Cushing, John Carradine, and Christopher Lee gathered in the most banal mystery any of them ever appeared in. It was great seeing all these guys in the same room (though actingwise, Price ruled the effing roost), but they weren't utilized very well overall; the by-the-numbers story and bland presentation didn't help matters either. It's a harmless film, but it sure didn't know what it had going for it.

Salsa - 5/10

Yet another dance craze-inspired relic from the late, great 1980s. It's far less ridiculous than the Breakin' movies or either Lambada flick, mostly because this crams in too much dancing for the plot to get a word in edgewise. But when the story does come up for air, the melodrama is hard to endure, as is a "hero" who knowingly cheats on his girlfriend, then yells at his sister for staying out after 10. I wouldn't recommend popping it in period, but should this come your way, just tune out the soapy drama and enjoy some pretty bitchin' beats.

The Fighter - 9/10

Not as emotionally resonant as Rocky or brutal as Raging Bull, but The Fighter was a damn good drama in its own right. It indulges in just enough realism and cliche, so as not to come off as too big for its britches and not look down on the audience at the same time. Sturdy acting all around, particularly from Bale and Adams, but Wahlberg was quite good himself. I'm glad the film gave his character something more than a vague concept like "the odds" to combat; Micky Ward was in dire need of self-confidence, and Wahlberg was a big help in making the journey to it convincing and involving. A straight-up, solid picture.

City of the Living Dead - 5/10

I belive this is my first journey into the world of Lucio Fulci, and while he does conjure some honest-to-goodness spooky shit here, it sucks that so little of it made any damn sense. Fulci's atmosphere reminded me a lot of John Carpenter (particularly The Fog), and with unearthly howls on the soundtrack and fountains of maggots filling the screen, there's no shortage of opportunities to have the hell freaked out of you. But plain and simple, the story is all over the map, and try as I might to put it out of my head and enjoy the zombie carnage, trying to comprehend what was going on got way too tiring.

This sounds soooo inferior to Blue Valentine.

I'll still see this eventually, but my already muted enthusiasm has been dampered. Question - does it have anything else going for it other than grief and sadness? I know that's largely what the movie is about, and I'm sure it's a bit of a downer, but are there any lighter moments or is anything other than how this couple deals with the death of their son explored?

And that Nicole Kidman. She used to be so naturally pretty, and now she looks like she belongs in a fucking museum right next to that wax statue of Meg Ryan. Wait. What? That's the real Meg Ryan you say? IMPOSSIBLE!

I took in Fantastic Mr. Fox and Sunshine Cleaning last night. Wes Anderson's film is a minor entry into his filmography that rehashes themes he's used in other movies. Still, it's entertaining, at times funny, and pretty good. The story has a lot of heart, and that's a positive quality. It's a story that really fits his style, so I'm a little disappointed he didn't come up with something great and profound. The stop-motion animation is neat to look at I suppose, but I couldn't shake the feeling that it was more of a gimmick than anything else. I just didn't really see a point to it, even though it did look pretty cool. I really enjoyed the voice work too, Clooney and Schwartzman in particular. Still, the movie feels a bit too light for the heft I think Anderson intended towards the end. It won't move you, but it is a pretty fun film.

Sunshine Cleaning is one of those slightly above average dramedies that's tough to really feel passionate about one way or the other. I'm not a big fan of these kinds of movies. In fact, I hate this kind of movie. It's an indie film done with a soulless Hollywood tint.

Amy Adams stars as a down on her luck, single mother who's in a relationship with a married police detective (Steve Zahn), and needs money to put her child (who is generally a strange kid) in private school (instead of, you know, dealing with her kid's issues - as if private school solves everyone's problems). So she enlists the help of her fuck up sister (Emily Blunt) and they start a business cleaning up crime scenes (thank God for the police detective hook up there!). Everything's going well for the pair until Adams' Rose has to prove to herself and her old high school friends that she's isn't the loser they all think she is by...going to a baby shower? To boot, she sends her fuck up sister to their next job, the one that could be their big break(!), alone with plans to come help afterwards. Living up to her reputation, the fuck up sister fucks up. She burns a house down and the fledgling company is ruined. Rose is right back where she started, except she's now $40,000 in debt because she failed to invest in insurance. Oh that silly, in-over-her-head, helpless woman. However, Rose and her sister have learned a lot about themselves, so can you really call it a failure? See, their mother killed herself when they were young and blah blah blah blah fucking blah.

This movie sucks donkey dicks. Don't watch it.

I wanted to like this movie but the whole thing fell flat. Quirky little Sundance "indie" with good actors playing the same boring material with no impact or real charm. Every one in front of the screen deserved a better movie.

Agreed. I like the entire cast, and they were all just fine. Arkin was essentially a toned down version of his character in Little Miss Sunshine, but he's really good in those sorts of roles. Like you said, they deserved to be in a better movie.

Suddenly ***
Solid, claustrophobic thriller with a great performance by Frank Sinatra (perhaps the only antagonist role in his career). Sinatra plays the leader of a gang that wants to assassinate the president. Sterling Hayden is pretty wooden and the film is a bit flat in general when Sinatra's not onscreen.

Duck Soup ** 1/2
I think Groucho Marx was incredibly clever, and I'd watch any stage performance of his, but I don't really view his movies as anything more than running skits, with virtually non-existent plots. Which isn't to say that I laughed quite a bit during the film, I just don't think that it holds together like the classic works of Keaton and Chaplin.

I would have never guessed your Fighter rating based on the writeup. Sounds like it isn't too original but still very good.

We looked at Fulci's The Beyond recently and it sounds like the two movies aren't too different. If a confusing narrative is indeed common in all his films then I doubt you'll find too much to like.



I'm glad you asked that question because I forgot to mention the tone. It is about grief, so the tone is generally pretty dark. However, I did chuckle at several intentionally light-hearted moments that are a definite asset to the film. The death is the only aspect that is really explored, but it's not 90 minutes of them moping about their son. It's more about how the death changes them and their interactions with friends and family. Again, I thought it mostly a very good picture marred by several missteps and it's certainly worth a look.

I agree with you about Mr. Fox but liked it more than you did. There are little touches (Mr. Fox's toothy smile, Kristofferson in his entirety) that elevated the movie for me.

Blue Valentine

This film is raw and unapologetic. It is a look at a marriage as it disintegrates and then back to when and how it began. There is no time to find out to much on either of the leads, instead we are smack in the middle of their current state. It was powerful and true and a must see for everyone here. Having lived through a horrible, loveless marriage, this one felt so real to me. An absolute gem. 8.5/10

Animal Kingdom
Goodfellas. City of God. These are the names that are being recalled when many talk of this film. That reminds me of all the buzz surrounding Gommorrah last year. This film is better than that one however and while it does not live up to the comparisons, it is a damned fine movie. A teen must move in with his grandmother after his mother dies of a heroin overdose. He becomes involved in the crimes of his uncles and his world and that of his family soon unravels. It is a suspense filled, tense film that is a great addition to the crime film genre. 8/10

Buried
A man buried alive in a coffin frantically tries to contact someone, anyone who can help save his life. He goes through cycles of fear, hope, depression, etc along the way. It is a good but not great film, well acted and worth seeing. 7/10