The Joneses

The Perfect Family

David Duchovny has been one of my favorite actors since I was nine years old. I was first introduced to him, as many were I assume, via the absolutely fantastic X-Files. I remember renting X-Files VHS tapes from the library to catch up on it (because when I started, it was already into season 5 or 6). I remember being in the children's hospital for a week when I was 10, watching X-Files all day on VHS. Speaking of, if I'm ever remitted to an extended hospital stay again, it better be at a children's hospital. They have some nice digs. Private room. Your own TV. I'd hope nowadays they'd have DVD players, but who knows.

Imagine my excitement when I came across a series known as Californication. David Duchovny plus lots of sexual material? Nudity? Drugs? Alcohol? Holy fuck. So a couple years ago I quickly caught up on that show, which is one I still watch.

Duchovny's film career has never been that prolific. I remember seeing him long ago (for me) in Evolution, which wasn't anything to speak proudly of. He had a hilarious cameo in Zoolander. I actually greatly enjoyed Return to Me, but found it a bit formulaic - still highly enjoyable. I liked both X-Files films (surprise, surprise), and never saw House of D or The TV Set. But, to put it plainly, he's never been a highly recognized film star. His greatest successes have been in television.

With The Joneses, I found a greatly entertaining, funny film with some excellent performances by both Duchovny and Demi Moore (who, at almost 50 - in this film, looks great). It's an excellent satire of modern American consumerism and materialism. To describe the plot would be an abomination. The plot is its great surprise. The netflix description basically says "The Joneses are a perfect family on the surface with a shocking secret." That's all I knew when I saw it. And the reveal of such secret was one of its many pleasures. So I shall not ruin it.

Its other pleasures? It's funny. It's satirical. It's well-acted. Flaws? This could has been a more topical, relevant film for our time. Instead, it tries much too hard. I admired it some for its ambition, but sometimes ambition can be your downfall. Just ask Napoleon.

With that said, I greatly enjoyed Demi Moore and Duchovny here. Amber Heard is also fun to watch, who I have seen most prominently in Drive Angry and All The Boys Love Mandy Lane. She is a gifted actress. And incredibly attractive. Those two in combination never hurt.

The Joneses is a good film. Not a great one. But worth seeing. On netflix instant.

***

Matthew McConaughey

I'd Like to Use this Opportunity to Take my Shirt off

I want to write a little about the rather well known actor named Matthew McConaughey. He's an actor who I've seen and heard many people treat with derision when it comes to his abilities as an actor. And, inevitably, somebody always mentions him constantly taking his shirt off. Admittedly, this is true. But so do many Hollywood actors. George Clooney? Brad Pitt? Do they get shit for it? I suspect it's because many hold McConaughey in a far lesser regard as an actor. Well, I'm here to say I humbly disagree - McConaughey is a great actor, who is only growing greater as the years progress.

He's delighted me in many roles. Some serious. Some dramatic. Some very funny. And sure, he's done his share of crap (*cough* Fool's Good *cough*). But he's performed in some great films as well, and given great performances. And I'm very much looking forward to Killer Joe, though being rated NC-17, it may be a while before I am graced with the ability to see that one.

Here's my run-down of Matthew McConaughey's best films:

8. A Time to Kill - The first starring role of McConaughey... I can't say the film is that great. It's a good film, but not one I really ever desire to rewatch. I enjoyed it, but like many Grisham films, once was enough (with the exception of The Firm and The Rainmaker, both of which are excellent and I have seen many times). Despite the mediocrity of the film itself (I'd give it a 6.5/10), McConaughey gives a worthy performance - in fact it are the performances of McConaughey, Jackson, Bullock, Spacey, et al that prevent this film from being a 150 minute slog.

7. Bernie - You can also find my review of this on my blog. A good film, with a great performance from Jack Black. But McConaughey, in my opinion, steals his scenes (some which don't include Black), and in the ones that do include Black, we've seen so much of Black's Bernie at this point, that McConaughey provides a refreshing juxtaposition. He's subtlety hilarious in every of his scenes.

6. The Lincoln Lawyer - The first film on this list where McConaughey is the star. And he gives a hell of a performance. He's charming, smart, and when he becomes stuck in a rut no attorney would ever want to find himself in, his drunken-hungover-running-on-empty presence is pure acting. Not to mention, it's a good film. Twisty, entertaining, funny at times, and rather unpredictable. With a well-shopworn genre such as the "legal film," The Lincoln Lawyer finds itself a nice entry in the pantheon of courtroom movies. It's no Anatomy of a Murder, but it also isn't any Double Jeopardy. I think I may pop in the blu-ray right after finishing this article.

5. Magic Mike - You can read my recent review of the film for my in-depth thoughts on it. All I'll say of McConaughey is - yes, he takes his shirt off - but he's damn good here. He has many scenes of great physical comedy, and his scene with Tatum about "biting the hand that feeds" is wonderful.

4. Tropic Thunder - Ben Stiller's directorial follow-up to the hilarious Zoolander is a fun, entertaining, smart, satirical romp of a film. Of course, the scene stealers here are Robert Downey, Jr. and Tom Cruise, but McConaughey is wickedly funny in his relentless search for Tugg Speedman's TiVo.

3. Frailty - Bill Paxton wrote, directed, and starred in this psychological horror film. And a good job he did. Not only is Paxton great to watch (as he always is) in the flashbacks, but McConaughey brings a mysterious presence to the scenes where he tells the story of the God's Hand Killer.

2. Dazed and Confused - McConaughey was almost not cast in this film because Linklater thought him too handsome. I'm glad Linklater followed through and cast him, because he steals each scene he's in; even if they are sparse. As David Wooderson, he plays an older (compared to the rest of the teenage cast) character who still likes to socialize with high schoolers. "That's what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, they stay the same age."

1. Lone Star - of these films, this one contains little of McConaughey on-screen as Sheriff Buddy Deeds, but the character of Buddy is the central conflict and driving force of the film. And when McConaughey is on-screen, he's a great presence; the scene early in the film wherein he confronts Kris Kristofferson is magnificent in its intensity. The film itself? One of the best screenplays ever written, and one of the best use of flashbacks in film history (which is where we see the character Buddy Deeds).

Those are the best films of McConaughey's career I have seen. There are several I have heard are good, but have yet to see - 13 Conversations About One Thing, Amistad, and Contact.

Aside from Magic Mike, McConaughey will be acting/starring in The Paperboy, Killer Joe, and Mud, both of which I am curious to see, especially The Paperboy, given its polarizing reaction from Cannes, and I want to see which side of the fence I rest on. And I already mentioned Killer Joe, which I will see the second it becomes available to me.

Yes, McConaughey's two best films were over 15 years ago. But I believe his best performances have been of late. He's getting better. And I think directors like Friedkin are taking notice. I hope I'm right.

Magic Mike

"What Can We Do With Seven Hours?"

Steven Soderbergh is a fascinating filmmaking figure. He's run the gamut from low-budget, realistic drama in sex, lies, and videotape to the big budget star-studded Ocean's Eleven to the experimental Bubble and now to a comedy about male strippers in Magic Mike. Or I should say, two male strippers in particular - Mike (Channing Tatum) who has been at it for years, and the new kid, Adam (Alex Pettyfer). Mike meets Adam at their construction job, and takes him to the club. When one of the other dancers is unable to perform, Mike convinces Adam to go out on the stage. He's a hit with the women, and the owner of the club, Dallas (Matthew McConaughey), sees some potential in Adam. And thus begins the training.

I knew little about this film before I saw it. I hadn't seen a trailer. All I knew is it starred Channing Tatum, was about a male exotic dancer, and was directed by Soderbergh. I was immediately intrigued, though not particularly about the male stripper aspect (not exactly my cup of tea), but directed by Soderbergh? I had to see what this was like. And I was honestly surprised.

The film started out as I expected, if you add in Soderbergh's typical directorial style. But Magic Mike becomes something more in its second and third acts. This isn't a slapstick, absurdist comedy. In fact, it gradually becomes a much darker film than I anticipated. And this is when the film elevated itself.

For me, Soderbergh is a mixed bag of a director. He's no doubt prolific, having directed two films this year, one film last year, and two in 2009. That's just of late. I admired Haywire for its more "independent" approach to action-cinema. Its directed not in a hurky-jerky, cut every three seconds, Michael Bay style, but a sensible aesthetic that isn't an assault on the senses. I didn't so much admire its story, which I found rather bland and dull. I admired Contagion for its hyper-realistic approach to the outbreak and failed containment of a deadly virus. But that film's focus was too grand, with too many characters, and lacked an engagement on an emotional level. Magic Mike too, in a surprising twist, takes on a very realistic style. The actors embody characters who are fully realized, with hopes and aspirations, personality, histories, and flaws. Mike wants more than to be a male stripper for the rest of his life.

After viewing the film, I wondered what attracted Soderbergh to this project. I went on over to wikipedia, which sometimes provides such information. It did not in this case, but I suspect Soderbergh was attracted to the human side of this story. I learned it's based on Tatum's own experience as a male dancer, which doesn't surprise me, because on stage he has the presence of what I imagine a real exotic dancer requires. He puts on quite a show. Even if it's not exactly a show I'd jump at the opportunity to attend. I also learned Tatum's first choice to direct this film was Nicholas Winding Refn. Now *that* would have been interesting.

This is a good film. An entertaining film. And a film that provides more than a simple Netflix synopsis would suggest. Tatum showed a great talent for comedy in 21 Jump Street. Here he exhibits an equally great talent for drama. He is a good actor. I hope to see him in more good productions.

***1/2

Most Anticipated Films of 2012

Why? Because fuck you and I love Movies

So the year is over half over. I've seen some good movies. None I will declare "great," but some good films. The Cabin in the Woods was good. The Avengers and 21 Jump Street were good. Chronicle was a solid piece of entertainment. And The Dark Knight Rises was good, despite my many disappointments with it. Cabin in the Woods thus far remains my favorite of the year.

Thus, I present you, my most anticipated list of 2012. Some have been released, either in wide or limited released, I simply haven't seen them yet. But I shall, in time. Without much explanation as to why, probably because I like the actors, the directors, both, or the trailer.

10. Gravity; Cuaron, Alfonso

9. Gangster Squad; Fleisher, Ruben

8. Moonrise Kingdom; Anderson, Wes

7. Killing Them Softly; Dominik, Andrew

6. Lawless; Hillcoat, John

5. Killer Joe; Friedkin, William

4. Lincoln; Spielberg, Steven

3. Argo; Affleck, Ben

2. Django Unchained; Tarantino, Quentin

1. Inside Llweyn Davis; Coens (if released this year; still unclear)

And the most anticipated film.... (I know it should be #1, but it gets it own slot, especially since Inside Llweyn Davis is so up in the air): 

The Master; Anderson, Paul Thomas

Any other anticipated films of the year? This is my list. I'll be seeing each of these films ASAP.

The Cabin in the Woods

"DO NOT read the fucking Latin!"

This review will be short. Why? There isn't a lot to get into here character-wise, and the plot is most of the entertainment. To give away even the slightest of details would be an abomination to this joyous film.

Let's just say, it stars a few teens, who head out to spend a weekend at a cabin in the woods (oddly resembling the cabin in The Evil Dead, I have no doubt this was intentional). Once they arrive, strange shit begins to happen, and from there, the film descends into the unpredictable, the hilarious, the satirical, and the totally unforeseeable.

I walked in knowing a little about this film. I wasn't prepared for the true events of the film, especially the final act, which is gloriously over-the-top in a way that just puts a smile on my face.

To say it plainly and simply: this film is fun from beginning to end. It's funny. It's startling at times (I'm not much one to jump at things in movies, and I can't say this movie made me, but it has its creepy moments). Above all, I admire it as a satire, a loving-hate letter to the status quo of horror film in the industry. It succeeds in spades at that.

To describe the plot would be wrong. To describe the characters would be a waste of words. These are stock characters placed in an absurdly over-the-top, gleefully enjoyable plot.

There isn't much else to say. See this film if you like a good horror-comedy and some fun entertainment. Don't expect The Godfather. But you'll be rewarded with an enjoyable and fun film that is nothing like any other.

***1/2

Leaving Las Vegas

"...Or maybe killing myself is a way of drinking"

This is a portrait of a man who has far surpassed the point of help, unlike other films regarding alcoholics, such as Crazy Heart or Tender Mercies (both great films). Ben Sanderson (Nicholas Cage, in a role rightfully earning him the Oscar for Best Actor) is a screenwriter working in Los Angeles. As the film opens, Ben is already a full-blown, no-going-back alcoholic. It costs him his job. His friends turn him away. His wife has already left him. These early scenes in Los Angeles are heart-breaking as soon as we (very) quickly realize how far Ben has descended into alcoholism. After he loses his job, he then decides to go to Las Vegas, and drink himself to death. This is his goal.

His first encounter with Sera (played by Elisabeth Shue in a miraculous and tender performance) is on the Las Vegas strip, when he nearly hits her as she crosses the street. He's driving drunk. He's always driving drunk. That stands to reason. He's always drunk. His second encounter with Sera is on the same street, the next day, where he offers her $500 to go to his room. She agrees.

In the room, Sera proceeds to give Ben oral sex, but he's much too drunk for that business. Or maybe he just isn't interested in it. He just wants to talk to her. And this intrigues Sera, so she indulges.

This is a bleak, sad, depressing film. Or, I should say, the material is depressing. I am never depressed by a great film. But this is a film about people who are genuinely good, both self-destructive (in their own very, very different ways), and develop a rather unspoken bond that hasn't quite existed like this on film before. Sera and Ben's relationship isn't sexual. It's hardly romantic. They are two people - lonely and miserable - who come to care about each other. Even Ben, who is drunk every second of the film, has the ability to reach within himself and show kindess to Sera.

Both Sera and Ben develop a relationship where they need each other. Ben calls Sera his "angel." And after Ben tells Sera that she "can never, ever ask [him] to stop drinking," she quietly replies, "I know." This hurts her. She wants to help him. Eventually, she does urge him to seek help. This enrages him, he brings a prostitute to her house, and she kicks him out.

In a moment of desperation, Sera enters herself into a situation that is absolutely heart-breaking, and this is where she realizes how much she needs Ben. She must stick with him to the end. He is her redemption.

And such is why I believe this is not a story about Ben Sanderson so much as it is about Sera. She is the one capable of change; capable of a choice. Ben, long before meeting Sera, determined his fate. This is a tragedy, but also a beautiful love song. Not one involving sex. Not an ordinary love song. But one nonetheless.

Mike Figgis, writer, director, and composer of the film, has a great attention for detail to the dark, subdued, and often buried sides of human nature. He shot the film on Super 16, often shooting on the Vegas strip with no permit, and usually in one take. He believed this method added to the authenticity of the scene, rather than closing the strip down. I can't disagree with him. Shue and Cage turned in the two best male-female performances of 1995.

At one point, Ben says to Sera "I knock things over all the time, throw up all the time. These past few days I've been very controlled. You're like some sort of antidote that mixes with the liquor and keeps me in balance. But, that won't last forever." But Sera certainly hopes it does.

This is the best film of 1995, one of the best of the 90s, and simply, an all around brilliant, well-acted, -directed, and -written piece of art. It could have been one thing. Instead it was the better alternative.

****

Ripley's Game

Hold my watch, because it if it breaks I'll kill everyone on this train

I loved The Talented Mr. Ripley. Matt Damon gave an excellent performance, as did Jude Law, and it was my first introduction to the character of Tom Ripley. That was over a year ago.

I've now, for the first time, watched Ripley's Game, which I had heard from many people was awful. I decided not to see what the critics said (I usually prefer not to hear their opinion before I see a film, so as to not taint my experience). I love John Malkovich as an actor; he was superbly splendid in In the Line of Fire, playing yet another deranged psychopath to Clint Eastwood's secret service hero. That is a great movie. So is Ripley's Game.

The film involves Tom Ripley, who outright murders a man with a fire-poker within the first three minutes of the movie. He's a complete sociopath, yet at the same time, likable with a sense of dignity and class, and simply a man you'd love to have a conversation with. He's educated, he has taste for the arts, for wine, for decor; he's a well-round elitist. The conflict begins when Ripley, now living a luxurious life in Venice, attends a party hosted by his neighbor Trevanny (Dougray Scott). Minutes after entering the party, he overhears the host insulting Ripley: "he has all that money and no class." Soon, the members of this room notice Ripley standing at the door's edge, obviously having overheard these insults. Trevanny says to him "Oh hi, you're here. Excellent. We were hoping you'd show up." "Why?" Ripley says. "To add some spice to the evening," Trevanny responds. Thus begins Ripley constantly asking "Meaning?" to everything Trevanny says. It's an excellent scene that immediately establishes the social character of Tom Ripley. He really doesn't like to be insulted. And the terrifying suspense of every "meaning?" adds a great tension to a scene wherein, just mere minutes prior, we witnessed the without-restraint murder of someone via a fire-poker.

Ripley leaves the party, and days later, is asked by Reeves (Ray Winstone), to assassinate a rival mobster. Ripley, still irked by the insult Trevanny sent his way, suggests that Trevanny, not he, do the murder. He suggests a total innocent is best. And Winstone agrees, and thus begin the attempts to convince Trevanny to murder this mobster. He does, eventually, but then the true complications begin, for which he, nor Ripley, could have foreseen. They strike up an unlikely friendship, especially given that Trevanny initially insulted Ripley (which is no small deal to Tom Ripley).

From here, I shall not describe the plot. But it is a fascinating, wonderful, joyously entertaining one; the true Tom Ripley from the Patricia Highsmith novels. Matt Damon did a phenomenal job embodying Tom Ripley. Malkovich does an equally great, more mature, performance as the true Tom Ripley.

At one point, Ripley says to Trevanny, "I'm a creation. A gifted improviser. I lack your conscience and when I was young, that troubled me. It no longer does. I don't worry about being caught because I don't believe anyone is watching." Ripley truly is a man without a conscience, without concern for ordinary life; a true sociopath. But he does step in to help the man that once insulted him. Why? "I don't know he says."And when that man saves his life at one point, Ripley, in a moment of human curiosity, asks "Why did you do that?"

Malkovich portrays Tom Ripley in a glorious fashion. He's the Ripley we wanted all along; though I still love The Talented Mr. Ripley and stand by my four-star review of that film. This is simply a superior one.

I've learned the film was produced on a budget of $30 million, and not even theatrically released in the United States. and grossed the most theatrically in Australia at $2.6 million. It was a commercial flop, and why it wasn't released in the USA is beyond me. This is an amazing film, a near-masterpiece, that went to straight to DVD- and -cable in the United States. That is a remarkable shame. American theatrical audiences were deprived of an incredibly intelligent, maniacal, filmic experience.

****

21 Jump Street

Well, You Do have the Right to be an Attorney, if you Want to...

When I first saw 21 Jump Street, I was excessively intoxicated, and remembered very little of it. I have now watched it a second time, and realized how much I greatly enjoyed it.

Both Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are great here. They both have an stupendous realization of physical comedy. I knew this of Jonah Hill. Tatum was the one I was unsure of. But he turns in an equally great performance; inciting as many laughs as Hill. I find no faults in his performance.

Hill and Tatum, both police officers, go undercover into a high school to find the distributor and supplier of a new type of drug (I am unsure as to the details of this drug, other than it fucks you up). The brilliance of this film rests in its irony. Tatum, who attended high school with Hill, and was the popular kid, encounters a reversal of roles in this high school. It is Hill who becomes popular, and Tatum who becomes disliked by many (other than the chemistry nerds). The film is well aware of the genre cliches, and readily works around them. When a tanker is shot and begins spewing fuel, we of course expect it to explode. As do the characters. But it doesn't.

At one point, the characters discuss the "recycling of material" and the intention of us to accept it. Ironic, since 21 Jump Street is a recycled remake in and of itself.

There are a great many ironic pleasures, some within the climactic encounter, which I shall not reveal, but they are fantastically fun.

Sure, this is a film that operates under a standard action-comedy formula, but its undermining of shopworn cliches and insight into true comedy allows it to stand out. It's a highly entertaining, funny, and if you get the references, a hilariously ironic piece of filmmaking.

***1/2

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part One

A Plague on Mankind

Let it be known: I am not going to be nice in this review. I'm not even going to be very specific or put much effort into this. Why? This film doesn't deserve it.

It should also be known, the only reason I watched this film is because I watched it with Rifftrax commentary. Rifftrax, for those who don't know, is the post-MST3K awesomeness. Rather than making fun of old shitty films, they make fun of new shitty films (and good films too). Their commentary on The Dark Knight is good. Their Thor commentary is rather good. They have a number of great Rifftrax commentaries, and many that I haven't seen.

Okay, onto this Twilight nonsense. This is some fucked up, repugnant bullshit. I mean, what the fuck. Kristen Stewart, who I think is not only incredibly attractive, but also a very good actress (check out Welcome to the Rileys for an example), is terrible here. Probably because she isn't given a goddamn thing to work with. I'm entirely confident this entire film could be condensed to half its current running time, thus entirely eliminating the need for two separate films. I mean, to be totally honest, I'm entirely confident this entire film could be condensed to a pile of ashes and the world would be a better place, but we can't always get what we want.

1) Worst "sex" scene in all of film history. I think the sex scenes in The Room were better. 2) They did a fabulous job of making Kristen Stewart look like a 60 year old cancer patient. Thanks a lot. The most visually attractive part of the film and you go and fuck it up. 3) That "birth" scene? That was fucked up. I mean, seriously, Stephanie Meyer, something is majorly wrong with you. 4) fuck it, I don't even want to think about this film.

Zero stars

Moneyball

How Can You Not Get Romantic About Baseball?

I first saw Moneyball the afternoon that it opened, at the Rave Cinemas (my very favorite cinema chain, for their excellent picture quality). I loved the film. It was a great experience; I loved Brad Pitt's subtle, un-showy performance, and I loved the highly subtle but effective performance from Jonah Hill. I loved the dialogue. I loved the screenplay. I loved the cinematography. The sound mixing. Just about everything.

I quickly realized this was a film I needed to see again. Perhaps it's a problem with me, but I rarely grasp every aspect and detail of a film upon first viewing. I need re-watches. I greatly enjoy them. They provide me with an alternative perspective on the film. Sometimes, as in the case of The Descendants or The Dark Knight I am absolutely enthralled upon first viewing. And in later viewings, these films decrease in their impact for me. Some films are spellbinding upon first viewing. Whether it be your mood or state of mind, or just the sheer enjoyment of seeing such a film for the first time (as it was for The Dark Knight for me), some films simply need to be re-watched to be properly evaluated.

After my viewing of The Dark Knight, at a midnight screening the night it opened, I turned to my friend and said "Not as good as No Country for Old Men, but better than There Will Be Blood." Essentially, I proclaimed it the second best film I had ever seen. It is not that. Not nearly. Of course, that was early in my film career - I was 18 at the time, had seen few (very few) films, but the adrenaline of seeing The Dark Knight caused an instant reaction where I declared it to be a masterpiece beyond the scope of There Will Be Blood. I reiterate - it is not. It's a flawed, though highly enjoyable, brilliantly acted and directed film.

Enough about all that. I'm 22 now, and four years later, I have seen a great many more films (with many more to still be seen). I will not pretend that I am any film expert - I am 22 years of age, after all. But I have seen a good amount of (what I consider) brilliant films.

Moneyball rests at #4 of my top 10 of 2011. It is Brad Pitt's second best performance, just behind Kalifornia, for which I believe he and Juliette Lewis should have both won Oscars. Pitt gives not a showy performance. He is subtle. He's a real person. A real father. A real person struggling with their place in life. At one point he asks himself "What the hell am I doing?" We've all asked ourselves the same question at some point, at least I have.

The script, co-written by Aaron Sorkin (of the masterpiece The Social Network fame) and Steve Zaillian, is brilliant. It's largely composed of dialogue, but the dialogue shines. The actors bring it to life, and make music on the screen. This isn't a film about baseball. It's a film about the love of baseball. It's a film about the man behind the revolution of baseball, and his partner in crime, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill, in a brilliantly understated, subtle performance).

What I love most about this film is its third act. The Social Network operated the same way. It doesn't build to a showy climax. Sorkin understands the classic structure of film. The Oakland A's make history, and Sorkin focuses on Billy Beane from that point forward.

And the film concludes with perfection; a song by Billy's daughter, that absolutely encapsulates the theme of the film.

This is a masterful film; a film that should have won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (though I do love The Descendants). And it is one of the best films of the decade.

****

The Master

Just Say Something That's True!

If you're like me, which hopefully for your sake you are not, you're greatly anticipating the release of the brilliant Paul Thomas Anderson's latest work, The Master. I read this script probably about two years ago, and liked it a good deal, but Anderson's scripts, like the Coens, don't read as well as they play out on the screen.

I have never disliked a PT Anderson film. In fact, I've greatly loved every single one of them. He's one of the very, very few filmmakers, along with Alexander Payne, whose every entry into their filmography has never disappointed me. I am hoping the same for The Master.

For now, I present you the newly released poster, which I absolutely love, and the latest trailer:

Shame

The Disgrace, Shame, and Misery of Sex Addiction

Steve McQueen has created a masterpiece in Shame. This is the best film of 2011. A film I have seen thrice now, twice in theatres, and once now on DVD.

Michael Fassbender is a revelation as an actor, and it is no surprise he is one of the most desired actors in all of Hollywood. He has created a fascinating character in "Brandon," a man whose existence is defined by porn addiction, masturbating in the company bathroom, and having lots of unemotional sex with woman, and in desperation, men.

Brandon, by all definitions, is a sex addict. He loads his computer with so much porn that it must be replaced. Even I don't do that. He has sex with women he meets at bars. He has sex with escorts. He has sex with just about anybody that is willing to have sex with him.

When we first see Brandon, he is in bed, staring up at the ceiling. His morning routine involves getting out of bed, going into the kitchen, and taking a shower. His sister (Carey Mulligan) calls him repeatedly, leaving lengthy, pleading messages on his answering machine. He never returns the calls. Brandon is a classic portrait of a man who exhibits few emotions; everything in his life is physical. He has no emotional attachments to anybody he sleeps with. He has friends, co-workers, but I'd hardly call them good friends. He cuts himself off emotionally to his sister, though deep-down there is a bond there.

Brandon's life is thrown out of whack when Sissy (his sister) shows up at his apartment, unannounced. Their first encounter is when he walks in on her in his bathroom. He reluctantly agrees to allow her to stay on his couch for a few days while she figures some things out. Brandon and Sissy have a magnificently accurate brother-sister relationship, albeit not a normal one. They were obviously both damaged in their earlier years, though the film never explicitly explains how. And why should it?

Sissy is essentially the exact opposite of Brandon, emotionally. She wears her emotions on her sleeve; becomes attached to Brandon's boss after what he considered a one-night stand. She yearns for Brandon's attention, but he's reluctant to offer it. Not to Sissy. Not to anyone.

It must be a horrible, exhausting, painful life for a sex addict. Especially when what is typically the source of pleasure for many people becomes the very source of pain, shame, and disgrace for you; but you can't help but indulge. Alcoholism. Drug addiction. Very much the same.

In one of my favorite scenes of the film, Brandon, approaching his tipping point, goes to a bar and proceeds to flirt with a woman. Brandon's method of flirting isn't the same as most people's. In this instance, he boldly talks about how much he would like to fuck her, and then slips his hand under her skirt. But this isn't such a simple scene. In a stroke of genius, Director McQueen cuts between this scene, and the moments after this scene. In so doing, we know exactly where this scene is headed. And normally, that would be a bad thing. But here, it provides a rather terrifying energy to what Brandon is doing; the self-destruction; the cockiness; and his sly, provocative smile. It's a sequence of brilliant editing, writing, and acting.

On a budget of approximately $6.5 million, this film netted nearly $18 million at the box office. A fair achievement, considering it's NC-17 rating - normally the death knell for any film. I find many faults with the MPAA's emphasis on sex over violence, however in the case of this film, I cannot fault them for an NC-17 rating. Does anyone under 18 really need to see this film? I think not. My only wish is that there wasn't such a stigma attached to the NC-17 rating.

Shame is a brilliant, masterfully acted, stunningly shot, beautifully directed piece of art. Its cinematography is a collage of blues, oranges, and yellows. The contrasts of warm and cool lighting are gorgeous. This could be an educational video on the art of editing in a day and age where cutting every three seconds seems to be the trend. Shame is economical and thoughtful in its shot selection. It is the best film of 2011 and one of the top five films in the past decade.

****

God Bless America

"Thanks for not talking during the feature."

"Nobody has any shame anymore, and we're supposed to celebrate it. I saw a woman throw a used tampon at another woman last night on network television. A network that bills itself as 'Today's Woman's Channel.' Kids beat each other blind and post it YouTube. I mean, you remember when eating rats and maggots on Survivor was shocking? It all seems so quaint now. I'm sure the girls from Two Girls One Cup will have their own dating show on VH1 now. Why have a civilization anymore if we are no longer interested in being civilized."

These are words spoken by Frank (Joel Murray) to his co-worker right before his boss fires him for sending flowers to the receptionist's house. Joel Murray, if you do not recognize by name, is best known for his character Fred Rumsen on Mad Men, Danny Fitzsimmons on Still Standing, and Eddie Jackson on Shameless. He is an actor never much put in the spotlight, at least not that I've seen, but here he creates a subtle, subdued portrait of a depressed man on the brink of insanity.

The film opens with Frank pontificating about his hatred for a great number of people; his neighbors, their infant child (who he describes as "some kind of nocturnal civil defense air raid siren that goes off every fucking night like it's Pearl Harbor"), the "celebrities" on reality TV shows - the list goes on. Within the first two minutes of the film, we witness the murder of his neighbors (and infant child) at the receiving end of Frank's shotgun. This is fantasy. At least, for now.

Frank is divorced. His daughter, perhaps 10 or 11 years old, doesn't want to spend time with him. Not to mention, she's a spoiled brat, exclaiming to her mother, "I hate you! You got me a Blackberry and I wanted an iPhone!" His ex-wife isn't particularly cordial. He loses his job in an absurd series of circumstances. And to top it off, discovers he has an incurable brain tumor. What does he decide to do? Well, while watching one of those reality shows where a spoiled teenager bitches because her parents give her a Lexus instead of the Cadillac Escalade she wanted, he decides to murder her. And so he does. One of her classmates, Roxy (Tara Lynne Barr) witnesses the murder, and immediately responds with "awesome!" Barr, whom I did not recognize, has apparently appeared in a number of television and film roles (such as Drake and Josh), none of which I have seen. Here, she brings a kind of exuberant energy to the role and completely makes it her own. She too, decides that many people are stupid, and therefore should die. So she joins Frank in his killing spree.

From this point forward, the film becomes a splendid synthesis of Bonnie & Clyde and Natural Born Killers. It has not the perfection of the former, nor the over-the-top energy of the latter, but it bears many similarities. 

In one of my favorite scenes, Roxy and Frank, in a motel room, discuss everybody that they hate. Oskar Schindler wrote a list of roughly 1,000 individuals. Roxy and Frank's list of people and groups they hate could put that number to shame. Roxy wants to kill them all. Frank insists - "we only kill people that deserve it." Do any of these victims deserve death? Certainly not, and the film realizes it. That's why I watched this movie with a gleeful smile on my face. It's a dark, comedic, satiric poke at the current state of political and cultural affairs in this country. And anybody who rolls their eyes at the Kardashians, or the Jersey Shore, will find some level of entertainment in this. The key is to recognize that this film doesn't glorify murder or violence; it simply uses it as a tool for a bigger statement. This is a movie. Not reality.

After a hilarious, brilliant, ADD monologue about the magnificent of Alice Cooper, Frank jokingly refers to Roxy as "Juno." She doesn't like this: "Don't ever call me Juno again... that's who we should kill next!" "A fictional character?" "No, Diablo Cody!"

In another wonderful exchange, Roxy suggests murdering the cast of Glee. Frank asks, "What's wrong with Glee?" "It stereotypes and homogenizes homosexuals. Plus it ruined Rocky Horror forever." She also proclaims "Our prime directive is to interfere with the cultural evolution of a pre-warped civilization." Roxy is a smart girl, if not deranged.

The film builds to its inevitable climax, which I shall not describe, but you may suspect it early in the film, when Roxy buys a hat for Frank, as I did.

I recommend this as a fantastic work of dark satire; a film not to be taken seriously, but a film to be entertained by. Its violence, murder, and chaos is unwarranted and over-the-top in reality. But, let me reiterate, this is a movie. *Not* reality.

"Who am I? I'm Frank. But that doesn't matter. Question is, who are you? America has become a cruel, vicious place. We reward the dumbest, the shallowest, the meanest, and the loudest. No longer have we any common sense. No decency. No sense of shame. No right or wrong. The worst qualities in people are looked up to...celebrated. Lying, spreading fear is fine, as long as you make money doing it. We've become a nation of slogan-saying, vile-spewing hate-mongers. We've lost our kindness. We've lost our soul."

***1/2

Rampart

"You Could Just Stop Beating People Up..."

These words, spoken by Ned Beatty (in a rather great little performance), couldn't be less true. Dave Brown, a corrupt LAPD Police Officer, couldn't possibly stop. It's who he is. The film is set in 1999, in the midst of the Rampart scandal, though the film does not directly deal with that issue. It deals with the character of Dave Brown, yet another dirty copy in the City of Angels. And in times like the Rampart scandal, the D.A. is cracking down on such officers of the law.

My first viewing of Rampart, upon its release in early 2012, I did not enjoy it. Granted, it isn't a film meant to be enjoyed. What I mean, though is - I enjoy any good movie. We Need to Talk About Kevin isn't any kind of joyous entertainment, but I did *enjoy* it, as it is a great film. At first, I felt Rampart to be uneven, plodding, poorly directed, and without much of any substantial narrative. I did, however, love the performances, particularly that of Woody Harrelson as Dave Brown, who is the center-stage of every scene in the film.

Since my first viewing, I realized the film had lodged itself in my mind. I hadn't forgotten it. I remembered much of it. Whenever I generally forget most of a film, it usually means it wasn't worth remembering. I think the opposite is true as well. So, I decided to give it another shot, and ordered it from netflix.

After coming home from a long day of doing all sorts of various things, and accomplishing few of the things I wanted to get done today, I sat down for the first time all day at 10pm, and felt like doing nothing but watching a movie. And what better time than to give this film a rewatch.

Let's say - my original meager two-star opinion of the film has changed drastically. Upon watching it this time, I was even more mesmerized by Harrelson's performance; not to mention the fantastic supporting cast: Robin Wright, Ben Foster (whose role is brief, but he's phenomenal), Ice Cube, Sigourney Weaver, Cynthia Nixon, Anne Heche, and Ned Beatty all stand, in their own ways.

I'll get something straight. Dave Brown is an evil man. He will not hesitate to shoot someone for mere theft. His backstory before the film begins involves, five years prior, his premeditated murder of a serial date rapist, who had a wife and three kids. The wife suffered a nervous breakdown, was committed to an asylum for nine years, before she slit her wrists with a razor. Dave has no regrets about any of this. He maintains to the end that he was in the right.

Roger Ebert in his review, described Dave Brown as pure evil. This is accurate. He does show signs of humanity, such as his love for his daughters, or his friendship with "The General" (Ben Foster). But when it comes down to it, Dave cares not about these people. Perhaps they're the only way he can even begin to feel a little better about himself, but ultimately, like the scorpion and the frog, evil is in his nature.

Let's get past Dave Brown for a moment and talk about the craftsmanship of the film, which upon first viewing I noted as shoddy. It is not. The cinematography is wonderful; the sound-mixing amazing, particularly in a wonderful, red-lit night club scene. During the day on Dave's beat, the Los Angeles desert sun is always baking down; sizzling. You can almost feel the heat radiate off the streets through the screen. One scene I am still unsure of, which I greatly despised when I first saw it, is the only scene involving District Attorney Bill (Steve Buscemi). In this scene, the camera is constantly revolving, panning around the room, cutting from actor to actor, but never stops moving. I understand the intent. I am hesitant to accept the result.

Director Oren Moverman made his directorial debut with the (better) The Messenger. Harrelson was equally great in that film. But The Messenger was more refined, more emotionally involving, and more expertly crafted.

This is no slight against Rampart. It is simply a lesser film than the other, but The Messenger is a nearly perfect film. It's much like saying it's a slight against The Godfather to say The Godfather Part II is a better film. They're both great.

I highly recommend this film. It's just one of those movies that was (for me) better the second time around, and that's never the mark of a bad film. Perhaps I was in the wrong headspace when I first saw it. Perhaps I was distracted. Either way, I now recommend it as a film to be seen.

***1/2