Joel & Ethan Coen: The Third Decade (2006-)

Though I didn't finish this project until the Walker Art Center's Coen Brothers retrospective, Joel & Ethan Coen: Raising Cain, reached its end, I'm still glad I took the opportunity to rewatch all 14 Coen brothers films (including A Serious Man, for the first time). Considering the lack of time I've been able to spend writing here, it was an ambitious goal, though it's given me (along with the Regis Dialogue I attended with them) a much more comprehensive understanding of their films.

Read:  A Conversation with the Coens & a Look at Their First Decade (1984-1994)
Read:  Joel & Ethan Coen: The Second Decade (1995-2005) 

(Title screens via the Walker blog.)

No Country for Old Men (2007)

As I mentioned in Part 1, I saw Blood Simple for the first time only recently, but it made an immediate impression on my understanding of the rest of the Coen's films, particularly No Country for Old Men. This was my favorite movie of 2007, a Best Picture winner, an instant classic, and one of the best movies of the decade. Repeated viewings have done nothing to diminish its stature in my mind, and I continue to gain appreciation for the acting from the supporting cast, notably Kelly MacDonald, who does wonders covering up her thick Scottish accent.

I Love Knowing the Great Betrayal, Man

Actually I just like mashing movie titles together. I've seen three of the five major movies opening in the Twin Cities tomorrow, though I missed chances at Duplicity and Sunshine Cleaning (just as well since that would have made for an impossibly long title). Since this near clean sweep of new releases doesn't happen very often, here are capsule reviews of each. And I'm including The Great Buck Howard even though it was pushed back locally - yet again - for another week.

______________________________

I Love You, Man (B+)

Hey PR firms, how 'bout a little creativity?

I'm not going to use the pop culture "B-word" surrounding this movie because I just don't like it (and I'm a stubborn contrarian with things like that). Besides, there's little romance going on here anyway, just your typical manchild hijinx. Which is not to say I Love You, Man doesn't have its funny moments. Paul Rudd continues to show the same leading man potential he had in Role Models, the supporting characters (especially Andy Samberg, Jon Favreau and Lou Ferrigno - who for some reason isn't a credited cast member) are hilarious, and there are two or three belly laugh-inducing scenes - and maybe a few more if you don't mind hearing the same joke five times.

But if you're looking for maturity or wit or originality, well then you should know better than to even be reading this. Just because Judd Apatow isn't involved here doesn't mean his influence isn't all over it: honest, innocent loser (The 40 Year-Old Virgin) has to get himself in order before major life event (Knocked Up), all while being held back by childish schlub friends (Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and so on). Apatow's is a brand that all comedies are copying these days, which means you've seen I Love You, Man before and you'll see it again soon. It's really almost like a sequel to Role Models: "See what happens to Danny Donahue five years later when he's about to get married and his only friends are still the nerdy role-playing kids!".

If stale humor is OK with you, or if you love the band Rush - you'll probably love I Love You, Man.

______________________________

The Betrayal (Nerakhoon) (A)

Find my original capsule review here.

As I mentioned in my pre-preview of the 2009 P.O.V. season yesterday, I've given The Betrayal a lot of attention here since seeing it at MSPIFF last year. Now that it's opening here and an official poster has been made, I'm offering what will likely be my final recommendation. It requires some patience to watch but it will likely teach you quite a bit about immigration and cultural assimilation, and also make you consider the collateral costs of war.

______________________________

The Great Buck Howard (B-)

Colin Hanks at his most expressive still looks like Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump.

By the last minute of The Great Buck Howard I had one question in my mind: why in the world was this movie made? It hadn't been terrible to that point by any means, but then it hadn't really been anything - it just existed on screen like a vapor, as if somebody made a movie about a guy who woke up this morning and had a cup of coffee. Then the epilogue text came up, reminding me that The Great Buck Howard was inspired by a true story: the career of the famous mentalist "The Amazing Kreskin", for whom writer/director Sean McGinly once worked as an assistant. Alright - so it's a biopic/tribute movie of sorts, and McGinly reminds us on screen that "no one has ever proven that his [Kreskin's] magic is anything less than 100% amazing". Whatever - McGinly also hasn't proven to me that this movie is anything less than 100% forgettable.

I'm being overly harsh. It was entertaining enough and I laughed quite a bit at John Malkovich taking this part and running with it, much like Jim Carrey used to do with these unique roles. But this movie is just missing something to make it really terrific, like a magic show where all of the tricks are decent but none of them are astounding. Worse, you often find yourself waiting for a punchline that never comes, so the comedy blows out of some scenes like hissing balloon. Too bland to see in the theater, but charming enough for a DVD rental.

______________________________

Knowing (F)

You might find yourself doing this during the movie in order to keep yourself entertained.

And Hollywood's crowning achievement (and my guess as the box-office winner) for the week of March 20, 2009, is the disaster movie Knowing. It's about knowing when the world will end, and if that happens in real life before you're done watching this movie, consider yourself a blessed soul. Without question the worst movie I've seen since The Happening (though not nearly as pretentious), this Nicolas Cage vehicle shocked me only because it was worse than I thought it could be under the direction of Alex Proyas (The Crow, Dark City, I, Robot).

I'll look at it in two parts: first noting the obvious weaknesses of Knowing and then shredding it for a complete disregard for logic and reason. MAJOR SPOILERS WILL FOLLOW.

Since I already mentioned Shyamalan's disastrous last movie, why not start there? Like the now-infamous director's recent movies, Knowing tries to make big, bold statements about paranormal issues like the existence of life on other planets and the ability to see the future or otherwise operate outside of normal human dimensions. Instead of attempting anything fresh or thoughtful, however, Knowing goes about its business primarily by alternating between expensively produced special effects (you can almost see the money burning in the fire from the explosions), tons of cheap, door-slamming thrills, and way too many scenes with freaky kids who are truly awful actors. And like Shyamalan's movies, the conversations you have afterwards won't be about the themes of the movie, but about the mystery of how and why these movies continue to be made with such frequency.

Knowing does add one somewhat original contribution to the "end times" genre by making numerous references to religious prophecies, but theological discussions deserve better than Nicolas Cage and aliens. This movie could have been, well, at least decent without these two liabilities and all the rest of the trappings of extravagant Hollywood fluff, including the most manipulative use of sound effects and a musical score that I've heard in years: something...Is... GoInG... TO... HAPPEN RIGHT NOW - DUN DUN DUN!!!!

And now for a few of the immediate questions that threw my mind into a frenetic tizzy while watching Knowing. Somebody help me out because I'm really too dense to understand the following:

Why didn't the school officials start looking for Lucinda inside the school before dark? And when searching for her inside the school, why didn't they just turn on the lights?

Why didn't Lucinda just get another piece of paper and pencil instead of carving bare wood with her fingers? The "whisper people" told her to write it in a closet where she might never be found?

Wasn't Miss Taylor's class the only one to write the letters for the time capsule? If so, how were there enough letters available to hand out to the entire school 50 years later, and how had the enrollment at the school not significantly increased?

Why would anyone ever marry Lucinda, and how was she never committed to a mental institution?

Why does an MIT astrophysicist not only own a Ford F-150, but drive it like he just stole it?

Why does an MIT astrophysicist live in a decrepit old house, where half the rooms are inexplicably and beautifully furnished while the other half resemble interrogation rooms?

What's the significance of showing us the tiger show on TV so many times?

Why didn't John tell anyone else about the numbers other than his dullard MIT colleague?

Why would John, an alcoholic, not know how to properly pour himself a drink without spilling it all over?

What was the point of Caleb's hearing aid? It literally served no purpose (especially since Abby and Lucinda could hear the aliens just fine without one) other than to amplify the creepy whisper noises for the audience, right?

Wasn't the first disaster (the plane crash) to happen on 10/26/08? Then how did the last one happen on 10/19/08? I swear those dates were messed up.

Why did John run into the burning wreckage of the plane crash while everything was clearly still exploding, and how did the paramedics know he wasn't a passenger when they arrived on the scene?

Why did the aliens give the kids the rocks from the clearing instead of just telling them the message?

Why are the aliens ultimately revealed to be simply skinless, translucent humans, with the same muscle and bone structure and central nervous system? This has to be the most pathetic attempt at alien life in years, doesn't it?

If it's so hot because of the solar flares, how can there be so much fog and so many puddles at night? Wouldn't the earth's atmosphere be scorched of all moisture at this point?

Why would the aliens forecast any of the other disasters in the 50 years of history when it's all irrelevant to the point at hand - and what's the significance of 50 years in the context of human life, anyway?

Why did the alien show Caleb the burning world outside his window and completely freak him out? Why not just tell Caleb what's going to happen - like they eventually did?

Why would Lucinda write "EE" backwards when she's written all of the number forwards? Just as a sneaky trick for whoever figures it out?

Why didn't Caleb have a cell phone? Wouldn't it be more likely that he would have a cell phone than that he would always have change handy for a pay phone? Why there are so many pay phones around in the first place?

Why does the fate of the world always lie in the hands of white American kids? And why do all of the last major disasters only happen in the U.S.?

Why were there so many people waiting in the subway station? Don't those trains run every few minutes?

Why did Caleb honk the horn of the truck if the aliens aren't there to harm them or take them away? I mean, they're calmly communicating with each other, right? What was he so afraid of?

Why was the gas station manager the only person in Boston who had a Boston accent?

Why does Manhattan remain the only city whose destruction qualifies the apocalypse when it's not even the 10th largest city in the world?

Why wouldn't the GPS coordinates on the school closet door show through the paint if they were scratched so deeply into the wood?

How did the aliens expect the kids were going to make it to the UFO clearing without their help? Why wouldn't they just take the kids in their sleep or by force at any other point during the movie?

Why did the aliens drive an old-school Cadillac boat and not something more awesome?

Why did Caleb start writing the numbers at the end? Wouldn't John have assumed those were more clues, instead of stopping him from finishing?

Why would the news anchor say, "We're going to stay on the air as long as we possibly can. All we're going to do is repeat what we've been saying all along - get indoors and underground."? Why would he stay on the air and not just put up a blue screen with that message instead? Do they really care about maintaining their market share of the local news at this point?

How was John able to calmly drive through the city with the streets on fire and people in chaotic riots? What were people doing standing around in the streets anyway?

Who dressed the kids in tunics in the New World and why - shouldn't they be unclothed like Adam and Eve?

Why do the aliens give the kids albino bunnies? Because rabbits breed? Is it just going to be humans and rabbits in the New World?

Please help me with these and many other questions if you see Knowing, because otherwise I'll continue to feel like a complete idiot.

REVIEW: Changeling (C-)

A full disclosure before I address this movie: For the last decade, there has been no actress who's bothered me more than Angelina Jolie. I don't know her and I don't mean to make any personal judgments about her. I think she has acting talent and I commend her efforts (whatever her motive) for bringing awareness to the plight of refugees worldwide.

But that doesn't mean I have to respect her lifestyle and it doesn't mean I have to like her movies. It doesn't mean I have to fawn over her children or her fashion sense, or that I have to ignore the fact that as arguably the most overexposed celebrity in the world, it's virtually impossible for her to disappear into any role. It doesn't mean I have to drop to my knees while she simply alternates between sexy killer (Tomb Raider, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Beowulf, Kung Fu Panda, Wanted) and tortured hero (Beyond Borders, A Mighty Heart, Changeling). It doesn't mean I have to listen to her pretentiously deliver the wisdom of an old soul as she waxes nostalgic about Hollywood's golden years (she's the oldest 35 year-old I've ever heard; you're not Meryl Streep, honey). And it certainly doesn't mean I have to accept the ridiculous notion that she has "died for my sins". Please.

I say all of this as a defense, because if you know this about me (and enough people do), you're ready to dismiss my criticism for Changeling as criticism for Jolie. But it's not. There is plenty enough wrong with this movie that has nothing to do with her, and it wouldn't be fair to tear down a movie for one performance anyway. Jolie gets a pass for this one, even though the costumed character of her Oscar-baiting performance reminded me more of an emaciated clown than a distraught mother. To be most accurate, this was Madame Tutli-Putli brought to life (let's forget I recently made the same comparison for a different movie). But Jolie was fine in her part, predictably balancing elegance with extreme emotional outbursts. So if wasn't her that I had a problem with, what was it?

For starters, the lack of a compelling story. On the surface, the true life tale of a mother battling with the corrupt L.A.P.D. over the true whereabouts of her kidnapped child sounds fascinating, but digging deeper it ends up being a bit of a bore. Equal parts Zodiac and L.A. Confidential, it lacks both the chilling moments of the former and the suspenseful intrigue of the latter. There's almost no way to form a natural connection with the characters (natural being the operative word, assuming you can ignore the manipulative filmmaking), which makes sitting through it for 141 minutes pretty tiring. There's a noirish feel around the entire production (especially in the visual style and setting), but Changeling is glaringly lacking in two of the most important elements of noir: character and tone.

Who are these people, and why should we care about them? Christine Collins (Jolie) is depicted as a saintly single mom, but we know literally nothing about her aside from the fact that her husband left her and her son, and now she works as a manager at the telephone company. She’s certainly the victim of a great tragedy here, but I guess I needed something else to latch on to. Besides, it seemed more like Angelina Jolie playing Angelina Jolie than anything else. Give me more background on Christine Collins and I’ll be better able to empathize with Christine Collins.

Even more one-dimensional than Collins is Captain J.J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan from USA’s “Burn Notice”), the tough talking L.A.P.D. cop who writes his own rules, emotionally wavers between mildly annoyed and extremely irritated, and, for no identifiable reason, speaks with an Irish brogue. In the other corner is John Malkovich (Burn After Reading), a historically great actor who recently seems to be phoning in these blaring performances just so he has an opportunity to shout on cue. Add in a stereotypically insane villain, some annoying kids (who apparently don’t age at all during their adolescence), and evil mental hospital nurses who look like they just came off the set of an old horror movie, and you’ve rounded out the overall poor cast of characters. If not for Christine’s boss and Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone) showing some flashes of believable emotion, there might not be a real person on screen throughout the movie.

In fact, the cityscapes and period touches feel more realistic than the people speaking, and it would be fair to predict Changeling receiving some Oscar consideration for its art direction (an opportunity for Best Costume was missed by having Jolie wear the same outfit throughout the movie). Beyond that, I would be surprised if the movie made any splashes during award season.

Oh wait, I forgot. The person responsible for this mess is also the person most beloved by the Academy in recent years: Clint Eastwood.

To take nothing away from a legendary career that spans four decades, I wonder if anyone has yet to gain the courage to tell Mr. Eastwood that his recent projects (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima, all three Best Picture nominees or winners) aren’t quite as good as he’s tried to make us admit. The guy has a gift for manipulation, and I’m talking about his filmmaking, not his business practices. In Changeling, it’s evident in the cheap thriller moments (chicken spooks detective at ranch) and subliminal musical scores (throughout the legal proceedings), as well as unnecessary flashbacks (the ax and the ruler) and exaggerated running time (just because it’s long doesn’t mean it’s epic).

Angelina Jolie saves the world again at a theater near you...

I don’t want to call Changeling a bad movie as much as I want to call it a missed opportunity. On paper, the story really should have made for something more substantive, more moving or at the very least, more relatable to 2008. Kids are still going missing and the L.A.P.D. is still accused of corruption, but Eastwood fails to connect any dots and make this story relevant in the way that (never thought I’d compare these two “directors”) Ben Affleck did last year in Gone Baby Gone. Alright, so that movie took place in the present day – maybe that’s unfair. But at least Gone Baby Gone was mostly entertaining, wasn’t it? The same can’t be said for Changeling. Now excuse me while I inexplicably buy a ticket to see Eastwood’s Gran Torino next month…

Grade:
Writing - 6
Acting - 7
Production - 6
Emotional Impact - 6
Music - 4
Social Significance - 5

Total: 35/50= 70% = C-

REVIEW: Burn After Reading (B+)

While my wish for a Coen Bros. sighting/introduction (they're here filming A Serious Man) at the promo screening of Burn After Reading last week went unfulfilled, my expectations for a distinctly Coenesque comedy were easily met: bizarre characters, dark humor, and a downward spiraling story.

The star power in Burn After Reading is in stark contrast to most of the Coens' films, including last year's Best Picture winner No Country for Old Men, and especially compared to A Serious Man, which will feature no one you've ever heard of. Indeed, the five actors listed on the marquee for Burn After Reading have all been nominated for acting Oscars, and three of them (George Clooney, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton) have won. Add in the Coens' own writing and directing Oscars and you have what might be the most impressive ensemble of any movie so far this year.

This is not a fact that can be easily overlooked, because the characters written by Joel and Ethan Coen could not be trusted in the hands of amateur actors. From McDormand's neurotic Linda Litzke to John Malkovich's nihilistic Osborne Cox to Brad Pitt's naive Chad Feldheimer, we have some of the most engaging (yet also some of the most one-dimensional) personalities of any of the Coens' thirteen movies. While these three characters left the most distinct impression on me as I look back on Burn After Reading (including my favorite line - Pitt's laugh about the Schwinn), the rest of the cast is most certainly deserving of high praise as well. Richard Jenkins revives and softens his Walter Vale persona from The Visitor, J.K. Simmons dials in one of the most hilarious C.I.A. chiefs in recent memory (even somewhat reminiscent of his indifferent Mac MacGuff in Juno), and Tilda Swinton and George Clooney face off again in an amusing "what if?" scenario that could have been tacked onto the end of Michael Clayton.

I'm zeroing in on the characters ahead of the story here because they're where the heart of Burn After Reading beats most loudly (that is, when it's not drowned out by Carter Burwell's driving score, which I can only assume he developed to make up for his muted tones in No Country for Old Men). Yes, the characters are where this movie lives, if only because the plot is, to be frank, kind of stupid. A U.S. agent and a couple of gym employees get caught up in the messy divorce of a disaffected ex-C.I.A. analyst? That's it?

Yeah, that's it alright, but if there's anything more idiotic than the story, it's the absurd manner in which these characters interact with each other, and while it's what provides consistent humor throughout the movie, it's ironically also the one place that criticism of the film can be directed. At times I felt the Coens were going for laughs a little too easily, relying only on the goofy mannerisms that the actors seemed to create on their own. Instead of the rapid-fire writing of the The Big Lebowski or the cultural wink-winks of Fargo, the Coens seemed to be content, for example, just filming Brad Pitt run wildly on a treadmill. In fact, I was almost expecting us to witness Pitt experience the stereotypical and completely unfunny bike accident that would send him flying over the handlebars onto the hood of a car. This didn't happen, of course, but my point (and it may be an unfair one) is that the spirit of some of the biggest laughs in Burn After Reading unfortunately reminded me of Step Brothers: idiots screaming obscenities at each other.

On the other hand, I would be selling the Coens short if I didn't also acknowledge the wry, almost subversive humor that pokes fun at U.S. intelligence agencies and, for that matter, generations of spy thrillers. While taking aim at a bureaucracy with the traditional "nobody knows that they're doing" ammo, the Coens still manage to dress up the comedy with timely references to internet dating and U.S.-Russian relations. Moreover, I do have to admit that the brothers have once again successfully "captured a culture": the Beltway, where everyone is suspicious and loyalties are traded like baseball cards. From what I know about living and working in Washington, D.C., Burn After Reading's portrayal of a cloaked, almost comically paranoid environment is not too far off the mark. For the sake of our national security, however, I sure hope the depictions of those internal C.I.A. meetings are.

The jocular tone, violent irony, and surehanded style of Burn After Reading will come as no surprise to those who have seen other comedies by the Coen brothers, but it will be interesting to see if the general moviegoing public, perhaps most familiar with No Country for Old Men, will give this one a chance (though the rabid Pitt and Clooney fans will surely help). It's not quite as immediately appealing as The Big Lebowski, but if nothing else it's proof that the brothers are still masters of their own uniquely distinctive form; the films of few other filmmakers these days are so immediately recognizable - or entertaining.

Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 10
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 10
Music - 4
Social Significance - 3

Total: 44/50= 88% = B+

REVIEW: Beowulf - 3D (B-)

Background: The latest adaptation of the English legend of the Danish warrior Beowulf is the second film done using motion-capture ("mo-cap") technology, the first being The Polar Express. The actors - Ray Winstone (The Departed, Breaking and Entering), Anthony Hopkins (The World's Fastest Indian), John Malkovich (Being John Malkovich), Robin Wright Penn (Breaking and Entering), and Angelina Jolie (A Mighty Heart) - wore skintight suits with hundreds of sensors on their face and body while filming. Beowulf was directed by Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future trilogy, Forrest Gump, and The Polar Express), who is deservedly regarded as a master of visual effects, and is the only director who has used mocap. There are two versions of Beowulf in current release, but if you're going to go you might as well see the 3D version - yep, you have to wear those awesome-looking glasses.

Synopsis: Hrothgar (Hopkins) is king of a mountainous medieval Danish village. Helpless in stopping the devilish monster Grendel (Crispin Glover - yes, George McFly) that is terrorizing his town, he sends out word that the slayer of the monster will receive a rich bounty of gold. Beowulf (Winstone) shows up and talks a good game, in the process wooing Hrothgar's lonely wife Wealthow (Penn) and irritating town spokesman Unferth (Malkovich). Grendel soon arrives and Beowulf tears off his arm, a fatal wound that Grendel succumbs to in his home cave under the mourning eye of his mother, the nude water demon (Jolie). By this time we've figured out that Hrothgar was seduced by Grendel's mother, and thus Grendel was his son. Of course Beowulf doesn't know this, so he is oblivious when Hrothgar tells him to go kill her as well. Not surprisingly, Beowulf falls under her spell, but returns to the village claiming he has rid the village of her curse forever. Hrothgar sees through the lie and crowns Beowful king before throwing himself off the castle tower. Years later, Beowulf's illegitimate son, who is a dragon, predictably returns to wreak havoc on the village. A long chase and battle scene ensues before Beowulf rips out the dragon's heart. To do so, however, he has to cut off his arm, and consequently dies a martyr. We're left with Beowulf's right-hand man, Wiglaf (Brendan Gleeson from Harry Potter...), facing the temptation of the water demon once again.

I Loved:
+ The animation - the detail was dazzling.

I Liked:
+ The 3D gimmick - it didn't always work, but it was kind of cool and helped draw you further into the movie.

I Disliked:
- Robin Wright Penn's face - it looked porcelain.
- Angelina Jolie's voice - creepy, not seductive.
- The cloudy ending.

I Hated:
- Grendel, one of the most disgusting creatures I've seen in a while.

Grade:
Writing - 7
Acting - N/A
Production - 10
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 5
Significance - 3

Total: 32/40= 80% = B-

Last Word: I haven't read the legend of Beowulf, but I can't imagine it's much more vivid than the film. That being said, I've heard that it also isn't faithful to the story. Most obviously, I would expect Beowulf to actual kill Grendel's mother. If not, what has he accomplished? Call me crazy, but doesn't the point of the story hinge on that simple fact? Otherwise the cycle just continues, and Beowulf is one in a hundred weak-willed men. I have a hunch that I missed something and she actually was killed, but it wasn't obvious to me. Somebody fill me in, please. That plot point aside, the animation in Beowulf is certainly eye-popping, even if you don't see the 3-D version. Robert Zemeckis is creating a brave new world of filmmaking with these mocap movies - literally half live action, half animation - and nothing else looks like it. Was Beowulf the best story to bring to life using mocap? I don't know, I guess you couldn't really do Grendel without it, but otherwise it didn't seem necessary. Fans of legendary fantasies or experimental animation will enjoy Beowulf, but I can't recommend it as a great example of storytelling, as it lacks substance behind all of the slickness.