BROWSE
ARCHIVES

This movie opens up with Burt Farlander (John Krasinski) and Verona De Tessant (Maya Rudolph) in the act of coital foreplay.  With his discerning sense of smell, Burt realizes that his longtime girlfriend is pregnant.  Cut to the title card displaying the movie’s title.  Thus it has begun.

This quick opening sets the tone for a beautifully paced, skillfully developed character study artfully crafted by the great Sam Mendes.  Mendes’ last film, Revolutionary Road addressed a couple similarly surprised by a pregnancy, albeit strictly within a dramatic drama.  Within the aforementioned film, not even in the poignant moments were there ever any sense of joy, as much as the terrible anxiety of waiting for the next tragedy to strike.  Away We Go however, has a spectacular lightness in tone that is wholly uncharacteristic of the typically bleak Mendes.

The basic story is a series of vignettes where Burt and Verona travel around the country having encounters with a colorful cast of characters.  Each encounter with a new couple introduces a new perspective on becoming parents.  Each encounter is incredibly distinct with each new family introduced serving both as comic material and tragedies of misdirection.

Away We Go isn’t simply a comedy.  It isn’t simply a drama.  It is meant to depict life; it insightfully represents all of its ups and downs.  Through their humor, we see each characters’ true pathos revealed.  When Burt jokes with Verona, there’s always a wonderfully apparent motive, which is most of the time an attempt at cheering her up.  Conversely, when Lily (Allison Janney) jokes about her kids’ physical shortcomings we can tell that its her way of justifying the oration of her own shallowness.  With some of the more zany characters, such as LN (pronounced “Ellen”) (Maggie Gyllenhaal), all of their funny lines are meant to be reflections of their own misguidance, which sometimes can be just as funny as it is sad.  In an almost Freudian way (i.e.Wit and its Relation to the Unconscious) this movie reminds us that any need for humor is mostly used to compensate for feelings of sadness, anxiousness, awkwardness, or other feelings of discomfort.

As a whole, this movie is quite incredible, but this is certainly due to the tremendous strength lying within each of its parts.  I laughed harder than I have from any film this year, but I simultaneously felt extremely touched by the simple problems of the people on screen.  A level of poignancy is reached that can only be found in films that show life within the reality that there are both good and bad things going on, more than likely simultaneously.  The language in this movie is quite foul at times, but it never once feels offensive.  It is all used within such loving context, as a simple means of venting about other bigger problems within a given character’s life.  Together Krasinski and Rudolph create a magnificent chemistry on screen that manages to radiate warmth and the utmost Eros, even in the absence of all eroticism.  So much love is felt with only dialogue as a means of conveyance.  This script fit the actors with such fluidity that the entire movie feels like a series of completely spontaneous dialogues.

Most criticism for Away We Go has been at an alleged superiority complex within Burt and Verona.  These claims are truly baseless.  Both characters express doubts of their own lives, and don’t ever hint at any self-appointed eminence.  Burt’s charm and wit come from his pure benevolent compassion for Verona, and his inherent courtesy for all those around him.  He’s a smart, nice, likable guy.  Verona is possibly smarter than Burt, but not nearly as self-assured at times.  They have a great understanding between the two of them that isn’t seen in any other on-screen couple during the film.  Does this make them better than everyone?  If the issue is really that they are just a little bit better adjusted, or just a little bit luckier, or even just a lit bit more in love, than what’s there to be mad about?

My recommendation is that everyone should try to see this movie.  It’s an absolute joy to watch, as it manages to stay funny whilst building poignancy throughout.  I sincerely hope that Away We Go secures one of the ten Best Picture nominations this year.  Thankfully for the Academy, Juno has already proved to us that indie comedies with dramatic elements are still in contention.

As a final note: Dear Sam Mendes- Stay Upbeat.  It suits you.

-Paul Brinnel

What’s the only thing worse than a comedy that doesn’t make you laugh?  The answer might be a comedy that’s so fixated on setting up the next joke that it forgets to establish any normal semblance of “story” or “character development.”  This movie is not just unfunny; it is downright boring.  I felt myself squirming with boredom far more than I’d be had I saved the trip to the theater, instead opting to sit on my back porch watching plants sway in the wind.  I’m sure some might be quick to peg me as someone who simply doesn’t “understand” the ever evolving genre of comedy.  The one so jam-packed with irreverent pop culture references that it only takes a break from those to flash you one of the main character’s asses.  Are these actually movies?

The film starts with four friends on their way to Vegas for a bachelor party.  Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifianakis), and Doug (Justin Bartha) each have a rather one-dimensional problem in their respective lives: Phil is a dismissive and money-laundering school teacher who comically hates his wife and kids.  Stu is a dentist who has been dating a one-dimensionally evil woman, and is planning on marrying her when he gets back from the trip.  Alan is hilariously a registered sex offender.  And then there’s Doug: the character not on-screen long enough to have any established problems with his life.  It’s ironic that the least developed character is the one we’re expected to care so much about after he mysteriously goes missing.  The rest of the movie is a painfully witless odyssey while these three friends trace their steps (á la Dude, Where’s My Car?) to try to recover Doug in time for the wedding.  (For awhile, they even hypothesize he might be dead!  Boy howdy, wouldn’t that have been a riot?)

In good comedies, entertaining vignettes can exist, but characters must connect them if only with subtle expressions of growth or lack thereof (i.e. Fellini).  Instead of accepting this fundamental approach to storytelling, this movie sets up scene after scene as if it were a crappy MadTV sketch, where the only constraint in writing was the number of characters with which to alternate giving marketable catchphrases.  Take the story and the characters and put them in situations where their reactions fuel the humor (i.e. The Big Lebowski, Superbad).  Alternatively, lazy or ignorant comedy writers can instead take stock characters and put them in stock situations and throw in completely sophomoric clichés.  Don’t expect any more than the latter from this movie.

Continuing to spiral out of control, The Hangover runs around in circles until the writers simply run out of “ideas.”  At which point, the characters make a convenient realization, and all in the world is right again.  Sadly, after an hour and a half of alternating juvenile one-liners and men’s asses, the last thing I wanted to see was a feeble attempt to have all the characters learn a lesson.  What I thought was just a setup turned out to be an attempted frame story.  This movie never tries to be anything, yet still fails wholeheartedly.

My thoughts walking out of this movie turned to some simple math: The Hangover has already made over $150 million.  If we assume people are paying roughly $10 a ticket, then that works out to 15 million tickets sold.  At a running time of 100 minutes, mankind in general has lost 25 million hours on this movie.  That’s almost 3 millenia of time people have already spent watching The Hangover.  I pose to you the question: was it really worth it?

-Paul Brinnel

It’s a good thing Billy Wilder released Sunset Blvd. in 1950.  Another three years, and chances are he would have had to have the following sit-down with his producer:

“Now Billy, the guys and I were thinking.  The market being what it is, these kids are coming to the movies expecting certain things out of their movies.  Well, I’ll cut to the chase.  Wouldn’t the ending be all the more spectacular if we could get more of a jump from the audience at certain moments?  Just imagine.  The kids are already on the edge of their seats and then, BOOM, old Norma pops out to within an inch of their face and they all scream, and then she screams: ‘All right, Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up,’ then we see her stare ya straight in the eye!”

Not a single great film of the 1950’s (a.k.a. Golden Era of 3D) is in 3D.  Great artists for whatever reason chose not to utilize the day’s gimmicks to supplement their already great movies with cheap thrills.

I saw Up in Disney Classic 2D followed a week later by Disney Digital 3D.  It was absolutely breathtaking both times.  3D is never used as a gimmick and is never in the way of the experience.  Nothing ever flaunted the 3D, and there were long stretches during which I stopped even thinking about it.  It maybe took 15 minutes to get used to the slight motion blur inherent in 3D.  (I assume if I were to watch more films in 3D I would eventually cease to notice said motion blur.)

My final conclusion is that it really doesn’t matter how you see a film.  As long as it doesn’t need 3D to support any gags or gasps, then it’s really just one more frill the theater can charge you for.  Undoubtedly, it’s also another subtle way to combat piracy.  If the pirates don’t have 3D cameras, then it’s pretty hard for them to pirate said experience.  At the end of the day, a great artist can create great things.  When movies operate at this level, nothing can stand in their way.  Now let’s give James Cameron a chance to prove me otherwise.

-Paul Brinnel

It’s a beautiful day. Flowers are blooming, birds are singing, and houses are flying. Summer has arrived, and with it comes an array of loud films filled with explosions and your favorite comic book characters. ’Tis the season when studios make their money by unleashing sequels and prequels of their cherished franchises to an all-consuming, fanboy public. Adults are busy hibernating until the fall. While continued franchises like Star Trek, Transformers, and Terminator compete with each other on a level of pure cacophony, Pixar Animation Studios presents yet another film that is more quiet and emotionally authentic than just about anything we’re liable to see this year.

The tenth Pixar film Up is the second by director Pete Doctor, whose prior effort was the charming buddy comedy Monsters, Inc. Like last year’s Wall-e, which brought us into the lonely world of the last robot on earth, Up brings us into the lonely world of septuagenarian Carl Fredericksen (Edward Asner). In his youth Carl was a balloon salesman and married to his childhood sweetheart, Ellie. The two were attracted together through their love of adventure and living life to the fullest. Their life together is presented in a silent, elegiac montage, set to Michael Giacchino’s beautiful score. In this sequence, Doctor manages to capture both the tragic unpredictable moments of life, and the human comedy of a relationship as portrayed in the couples buoyant perseverance and eternal love for each other. Now that Ellie has died Carl has receded from life into a grumpy old man. Then, to stave off going to the nursing home, and in obligation of an unfulfilled promise he made with Ellie, Carl straps thousands of balloons to his home, which lifts the multicolored house from it’s foundation into the air. The sight of the house soaring through the air, once again accompanied by Giacchino’s fine score is a fresh, breathtaking image. The flying house is headed toward Paradise Falls in South America, where Carl and Ellie’s childhood hero, adventurer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), used to travel to in his zeppelin, in search of exotic creatures. Accidental stowaway and young wilderness explorer Russell accompanies Carl to South America. The relationship between the two is the centerpiece of the film. Russell (Jordan Nagai) at first seems annoying. He’s an average kid who whines when he’s tired and has no reservations of saying what’s on his mind. Russell unintentionally forces Carl to come to terms with his own fears and helps him to rediscover the meaning in his life after Ellie.

While being deeply emotional and visually beautiful, Up is extremely funny. The age gap of the main characters fulfills its expected potential for comedy. Meanwhile there is absurdist humor with a giant colorful bird, whose neck movements alone provide a wonderful array of endless sight gags, along with dozens of anthropomorphic dogs, which somehow feels naturally integrated into this fantastical story. And while I praise the film for it’s moments of quiet, there is plenty of action. However the action is filmed fluently, without a lot of fast cuts or quick movements. Doctor has respect for the aerial action, not to mention the human eye. The only aspect of Up that doesn’t quite hit the mark is when Russell goes into exposition explaining his unfortunate family situation. These conversations are not only abrupt and manipulative, but also unnecessary. This is Carl’s story, and it’s a good one.

-Jason Bardin

In Bruges realizes a simple truth that is becoming increasingly overlooked in the film industry: a good comedy is one where you legitimately care what happens to the characters.  With this concept in mind, Martin McDonagh has created something truly remarkable.  This is by far the funniest movie of the year.  It has some of the funniest violence, slapstick witticisms, and raunchiest tenderness I have ever seen in a movie.  It realizes that all these seeming oxymorons, needn’t be.

The acting ensemble of this movie is one of my favorites of the year.  The unlikely team of Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson flesh out a remarkable dynamic onscreen.  They create an atmosphere that cries out buddy film, but let’s the two characters maintain just enough distance on screen to still allow for both characters to be explored very distinctively.  Both portray their characters fluidly, with very little time spent meandering about the camera in the act of self-contemplation.  These are hit men, not poets; it works perfectly.  Also noteworthy is the typically understated Ralph Fiennes.  Fiennes plays Farrell and Gleeson’s boss, a temperamental lunatic, and unlike many of his previous roles, does it with such gusto.  Watching Fiennes was just as much intentionally unsettling as it was pure fun.  Lastly, Jordan Prentice is noteworthy more as a device than an actor.  His character was certainly only necessary to move the plot along, although it is good to see that midgets in the industry haven’t lost any ground since Buñuel’s That Obscure Object of Desire (1977).

In Bruges has a particular vibe that is holly original.  The screenplay is brilliantly hysterical.  It is wonderfully dry, yet allows for countless moments that truly justify audible laughing.  This is without a doubt, the best comedy of the year.  It is undeniably dark, but the movie is by no means about violence.  Violence is merely something that exists within the lives of these characters. It doesn’t make them any less human, it only makes them feel more delicately mortal on screen.  At any time, we know that any one of the characters might die.  They know it too, and maybe that’s why they all can maintain such a splendid opposition to taking life too seriously.

I’ve been asked to describe In Bruges several times now.  All I can say is that at times it could be described as a scaled down British version of a Quentin Tarantino film.  Unlike Tarantino though, it manages to maintain tenderness even in its most violent moments.  When it comes down to it though, this movie is so much fun to watch because it just happens to be a damn good movie.  It represents great writing, great acting, and flawless execution.  It has no single genre, which is why it feels so much like real life.  There are moments of utmost hillarity only to be followed by those of terrible tragedy.  In between, it’s a joy to experience every annoyed or apathetic plea from the characters for life to start moving again.  It’s most fun when Farrell is anxiously awaiting the next major development, and Gleeson is swaggering along, simply absorbing the beauty of the respite between each action.

I loved this movie.  It’s everything a movie should strive to be.  I await your next feature with baited breath, Mr. McDonagh.

-Paul Brinnel