Instant Cassette

This weekend the Bluray player saw a lot of action, which was partially due to a desperate attempt to get rid of some Netflix titles that had been lingering for weeks (curse moving!) and the fact that I let resolution #3 get way out of hand at Target yesterday. But, for better or worse, that made today seem like an excellent time to make good on another resolution and bring back Instant Cassette!

Premieres

This weekend I finally got a chance to watch District B13, a french action film pumped so full of energy it nearly tripped the circuit breakers. It does action right, offering enough plot to justify it's existence while not so much that we get tied up in it and resent the action. And ooh is there ever action. Not only is it chalk full of free-running goodness, it also offers us action sequences filmed from angles that show us everything that's going on, a feature often lacking in american action films. I find myself wondering if the success of this movie has anything to do with how the action sequences were filmed for the up-coming Book of Eli. If so, I must imagine the movie is better for it. We'll see friday

Queue it.

Also on the list was 9, a star-studded spiritual successor to the short film of the same name. It offers a surprising amount of heart for a movie only 80 minutes long, and tells it's dark story through gorgeous visuals, and often little else. That I could have used a little more story from the movie is a debatable note; it could be said that we know, in terms of details, what the characters know about the world they awoke to- very little. All said, it's well worth a viewing.

Queue it.

Second Run

6 years later The Machinist is still affecting, even beyond Bale's disturbing transformation. As an ex-insomniac this movie still speaks to me; I wondered if it would now that I've made it through that part of my life. This is certainly one of those movies where you catch something new every time through, as enthralling as the story may be. Not for the faint of heart, but well worth the experience.

Queue it.

Today's Breakout Title: Julie & Julia

This is a movie I thoroughly enjoyed for, among many other reasons, it's simplicity. We are offered a window into the life of two separate women, from two separate times, united by the one thing they could know they had in common- that is exactly what we get. On top of that, we are treated to a movie where not one, but two husbands are supportive and thoughtful, a true rarity these days.

We also get, from Meryl Streep, a deft balance of the need to encompass the oddly ostentatious euphemisms of Julia Child, and the danger of falling over the edge into early Old School Carey-esque overacting. She delivers both an exhausting exuberance and a fleeting, tempered sorrow with the kind of skill that makes it seem absolutely simple.

And then there's Amy Adams...

I think I needed this movie this weekend. I needed it to remind me that the vacuous and uninspired crap (yes, crap) I witnessed Friday was the exception for her, not the rule. This is an actress who's biggest talent seems to be making audiences love her; from the timid assistant, to the impressionable young nun, to the misguided mistress endeavouring to be better- even as the girl who'll eat anything on that episode of Smallville. Even in Leap Year she works her magic, in that case simply making the movie bearable. Amy Adams oozes charm, Julie & Julia is elegant proof of this.

I can see where some may say it runs a bit long, but it doesn't run long for lack of meat like many other movies, and it is most assuredly not a deal breaking flaw... if you can even call it that. Any one who can make it through a movie with no explosions will benefit from it's dose of heart-warming entertainment. Your Netflix queue will be a better place with Julie & Julia on board.

It feels good to have Instant Cassette back on duty, don't you agree? We'll end with the new additions to the house library starting with Christmas and working forward. Please don't judge me pertaining to the embarrassingly high number. Sadly, I've still yet to track down a Bluray copy of Bladerunner, but I will not rest until I have victory. Be sure to come back for Five!! later this week!

• Star Trek
• Inglorious Basterds
• Terminator Salvation
• The Ugly Truth*
• 28 Days Later
• Julie & Julia
• Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen*
• Point Break
• Reservoir Dogs

*These are titles voted upon by residents and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Reel Deal.

Daybreakers

"I want some more."

In a world where vampire's are the dominant presence, a race is on to find a blood substitute before the supply of human blood runs out- a supply farmed from hunted and captured humans.

The first 10 minutes of Daybreakers had me convinced I was about to experience an undead Gattaca. Silently it made claims of exploring the inner workings of mainstream society of vampires. The social and emotional ramifications of a world where no one ages, no one gets sick, and there is only one viable source of food: the very people that this new population inherited it's society from. The very culture that everyone was once a part of. I was almost literally foaming at the mouth with anticipation.
And then a character randomly explodes in a shower of carnage- cut to me, heaving a disheartened sigh.
In terms of story this scene should evoke a sense of desperation and disappointment, but it was done with such a flare for the ridiculous that half the theater, including me, couldn't help but laugh through the tense aftermath.
In what is both a evidence for the defense and the prosecution, Daybreakers maintains this odd back and forth throughout a decent part of it's 98 minutes. Subtle observations on how a world like this might differ from (or resemble) our own are constantly seen back to back with garish, gory, action fodder. This is a feature I could live with were there some semblance of balance for the two sides. Unfortunately the Spierig Brother's blood lust proves unquenchable, especially in the finale, which takes that sad- though well shot- left turn*.
The performances are strong, if underwhelming and far from the best I've seen out of the likes of Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill and Willem Dafoe (who plays his typical, idiosyncratic character- though it feels a bit forced this time around). Although I must give the brothers points for resisting those same, done-to-death lines when they find themselves in cinematically familiar situations, they have the occasional affinity for out of place monologues, that try to offer depth or insight but fall flat as a week old Coke.
Though rife with small social observations (my favorite being that in a society of the undead everyone smokes), Daybreakers doesn't endeavor to take it's subject any deeper. And the over the top action ranges from occasionally tense to mostly campy, with little to make up the mid-range. There will always be a place for the empty headed actioner, this is something I am will never petition. But I think, and stop me if I'm wrong here, we have enough shallow supernatural to go around these days. That within celestial tale of Twilight a movie featuring the undead so prevalently must set itself apart is understandable. But do so by giving your film depth. Do so by filling it with a social relevance that teen love can't rival, not by pumping it full of corn syrup and severed heads.
If an act of God had killed the theaters power after the films opening I'd be tentatively telling you all how the fires of hope had been stoked inside me. That if the rest of the movie was anything like the opening- Daybreakers could miraculously shape up to be a preternatural White Man's Burden. As it stands, that's still the movie I want to see. Had it not bothered with any insight at all, it could have just been a fun action jaunt. But Daybreakers made the mistake of showing me it could do better, and now I'm holding it to that standard.

*The Left Turn: The point in which a movie, faced with a proverbial choice between action and substance (usually pertaining to the final act) chooses action- to it's detriment. I'm giving you the definition here, so I won't have to explain it again when it inevitably comes up again.
Example: I am Legend

Reel Deal recommends:
Gattaca: Ethan Hawke in a breath taking bit social commentary via science fiction.
Event Horizon: Disturbing sci-fi/horror that will make you hate Sam Neill.
American Psycho: A bloody take on corporate America starring Willem Dafoe.

Leap Year

"What an amazing smell you've discovered!"

Unwilling to wait for her boyfriend to propose to her, a young woman decides to follow him to Dublin and propose to him instead on February 29th. But when her flight is forced down early, she'll recruit anyone willing to help her cross country- even the not so friendly inn keeper.

Leap Year is, in a word: uninspired. In two: wholly uninspired.
I'll try to keep this short, if only to spare the cast and crew, but where do I even begin? To say this is a paint by numbers rom-com is to insult the many amazing pictures you can paint using numbers. This movie is the screenplay equivalent of Frankenstein's monster, built completely from the pieces of bigger more successful movies and electrocuted into existence in a dank, disturbing laboratory.
While it makes an effort to seem endearingly quirky, the quirks themselves are even recognizable, as well as the set pieces. If not familiar from unrelated films, they're familiar familiar from this writing teams last attempt, the box-office flop Made of Honor. In case you've never heard of it, Made of Honor stars Patrick Dempsey as a professional bachelor who chases his friend to Ireland in hopes of marrying her. Hmmmmm...
Despite both playing their parts well, Amy Adams (as the prissy beauty) and Matthew Goode (as the jerk with a heart of gold) can't seem to strike a spark together. They bicker well, but beyond that don't cause much of a stir. It doesn't help that every situation they're put in feels as forced as the movies ending; many stories progress to an conclusion that makes sense, this one feels more like it's trying to justify the sugary ending they already had picked out.
Wholly uninspired; I don't know if there's a better pair of words for this movie. As romantic comedies go Leap Year offers nothing in the way of the former, and rare flashes of the latter. Genre gluttons will undoubtedly find something to love, but the pickings will be slim. Anyone else will be well suited to steer clear.

Reel Deal Recommends:
Doubt: Stellar performances all around, including Adams.
Watchmen: A strong adaptation featuring a beautiful performance from Goode.

Up in the Air

"Is your mommy a docter? A scientific researcher of some kind? Well then she's hardly a credible expert is she?"

A determined bachelors crisis of career quickly becomes a crisis of lifestyle.

That Up in the Air's premise is poignant is not up for debate, but beyond it's relevance given the economic conditions we live in, it struck me as a bit unremarkable.
Usually I try to use references to other movies sparingly, and even then I rarely see them while still sitting in the theater; but by the end of Up in the Air there were other titles flashing like neon lights in my head. Three to be exact: Garden State, Sideways, and Thank You for Smoking (which I would later find out was also supplied a screenplay and directed by Jason Reitman). Three great movies to be sure, but movies I'm not sure would be as good spliced together on the same reels.
All of these movies were so good because they targeted all of their attention at one theme, exploring that topic as far as it could enjoyably go. Thank You for Smoking brings us the fast-talking Nick Naylor, a man who makes a living off the suffering of others. In Sideways we follow a man as he goes through what is essentially n on the road coming of age story played out 25 years later. And with Garden State we follow a man home to a family he's been avoiding it for decades.
In Up in the Air we meet the fast-talking Ryan Bingham, a man who makes a living off the suffering of others, as he goes through what is essentially an on the road coming of age story played out 25 years later and eventually to a home he's been avoiding for decades.
Now please don't get me wrong: that the movie has story elements in common with others is far far from a crime. I'm simply calling examples of how it's story elements should have been presented to make them work. I guess all that was the time consuming way of saying that Up in the Air is, in terms of story, a jack of all trades, but a master of none. It doesn't seem to know what story it wants to tell so it tells a few, and in splitting it's focus they all suffer. Sorry, sometimes you just have to take the long way around.
It doesn't help that all the stories it's trying to tell revolve around one leading man, a weight George Clooney doesn't handle well. He's a good cast for Superman, but not Clark Kent. He -in typical Clooney fashion- excells as the fast talker, but can't seem to bring vulnerable in for a landing.
Conversely, Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick make short work of their roles, playing them pitch perfect. It's their performances that earn Clooney the emotional currency he needs to buy the audiences sympathy as the story progresses. In a movie so focused on it's leading man, it can be easy for the leading man to carry the entire piece. With Up in the Air, it's the supporting cast that carry him.
I know I'm in the minority on this movie, and I'm alright with that. That this movie will probably go on to claim award after award seems a given to me. However, I wonder if those awards won't be given based more on it's allusions to social climate than anything else. In my opinion the only one it deserves is Best Supporting Cast.

Watcher X says: "She was a bitch, but I liked it."

Reel Deal Recommends:
Burn After Reading: A spectacular movie full of quirky Clooney.
The Departed: An Academy award winning remake with the beautiful Vera Farmiga.
Rocket Science: A young Anna Kendrick gives an awesome performance in a movie you should definitely see.

Ponderings in the Middle of the Night

I often find myself observing myself within the culture, trying to figure out where certain pieces of pop/culture come from. Everything has an origin right? And a lot of the time I think the answers are in plain view, we just have to connect the dots. Or really I do, because most people probably already have. It wouldn't be the first time I was late to the party.
There's a decent amount of criticism out there that points a finger at cinema as a medium and accuses the better part of it's ideas of being recycled. "There are no new stories," they say. The most recent lightning-rod for all of this has been James Cameron's newest juggernaut Avatar. That the story has been done before is pretty much a given. The most obvious parallel is, of course, Dances With Wolves- which has been repeated to utter death since it's first screenings.
With it's obvious ecological shadings many have pointed out that the movie bares (on paper) a striking resemblance to 92's FernGully: The Last Rainforest. And really the list only starts there: The Last Samurai, Point break, Eastern Promises, Smurfette from the Smurfs; the parallels are all there and those are just the ones off the top of my head- and even then just within cinema! So why do so many stories seem to re-occur in our culture? I think there's a very simple answer this question: They work. And I don't necessarily mean they earn money (though that's certainly part of it). I mean they work for us, as a people.
Case and point: Last week my girlfriend and I moved into a condo. As far as our needs it's pretty much a dream come true; everything we put on the checklist we made when we started thinking about moving is here- and then some. But since we moved in, I've found that I'm not sleeping all that great, and still am not exactly comfortable here when the lights are all down. I've never been one to spook in the dark but there's just a feeling of unease -however slight- that settles over me when we turn the lights out for the night. Upon mentioning this to her she told me she feels the exact same way, and hasn't been sleeping to well either.
The simple answer here is, of course, that we just need time to settle in mentally and that most "new" places can seem creepy because your not used to all the little noises they bring to the table. However, as I ponder these happenings (because that's all I really do), I thought of all the movies I'd seen that follow this very same plot. Young couple moves into a "dream home" only to find it's not what they expected. And for whatever reason the general feeling of unease quickly escalates into a scream-fest.
Now again, you can point your finger at the dozens of movies that follow this plot line and scream about how there's no originality. But I don't think these story lines get repeated out of laziness or greed (for the most part), I think they get repeated out of their universal appeal. who hasn't moved into a new place and been a little creeped out by it? Good cinema is just life inflated for closer study afterall.
More over, the main source of the trouble in these movies is usually some form of undead being. Now I'm not going sit here and write a manifesto about the human minds affinity for toying with and exploring things it doesn't understand, but beyond that I think the reason for the connection between this plot line and spiritual or undead antagonists is that a provides for happenings that can't necessarily be explained and that sense of unease can be given a source outside of the characters mind. Couple member A is alone in the basement and the door slams shut, or their are odd scratching sounds. Couple member A runs to get couple member B, only to have B study the door, or wait to hear the sounds and find nothing. B looks at A and says: "Your still getting used to the new place, that's all."
Now in real life that's where the story ends because B has just hit the nail on the head. And maybe the rest of the movie is a metaphor for the couples own fears and insecurities in their own relationship. But I digress; what is cinema if not real life in hyperbole?
The best stories are the ones that we can relate to. Stories we emotionally understand through experience, at least at their roots. Moving into a new place and feeling a bit uncomfortable. Coming to understand- or even love- something we may have feared or hated. We've all been there; people go through these things all the time. And writers are people (for the most part), so in drawing on their own experiences, certain stories are unavoidably told again.
The truly great writers just find a better way to explain something everyone tries to put words to. Or they explain it in a way that allows us to see it from another angle- while still recognizing it. But there in lays the rub right? Because different people see things better from different angles. Not every way to tell the story is going to speak to everyone- that's a given. And this is why I don't think it's completely wrong to see these basic story lines repeat. Dances with Wolves speaks to you, the way Avatar speaks to John Doe, they way The Last Samurai speaks to me. But at the end of the day, we all love the same story because we all relate to it.
In a perfect world you, Joe, and I would sit down and watch some more movies together I think. We could try and find out if there are anymore stories we all had in common. We could explore our histories, maybe even become great friends. We could even do it tonight, because this condo is f'ing creepy and it's not like I'll be going to sleep anytime soon.

Sherlock Holmes

"Phone call... It's. Your. Mother."


Amidst mystery and intrigue, Holmes must come to terms with the fact that Watson is leaving him- possibly for good.

You may not realise it, but you've actually already seen Sherlock Holmes. Or at least, you've seen most of the good parts. This movie is the latest to fall victim to what I've come to call the "Milk For Free" preview. Loosely translated, it means you saw all the best parts of Sherlock Holmes in the trailer.
This is not to say that there is absolutely nothing worth while in the full length film. The most entertaining thing about the movie is the odd couple pairing of Jude Law as the straight laced, ex-military Watson, and Robert Downey Jr. as the brilliant and therefore eccentric Sherlock Holmes.
Both make the roles pop, Jr. only tweaking his usual wit at the speed of light, foot in my mouth portrayal. I may not sound like I'm singing praises but the fact is it never gets old, even after two and a half hours. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie does.
It's not that it's badly made or written, it's just that somehow the movie seems a bit standard. Watching Sherlock Holmes feels a bit like a phone conversation with your mother: "Oh hey! ...I'm fine, you? ... Good ...OK ...uh-huh ...No ...Oh that's funny! ...yup ...alright that sounds good ...Love you too. Bye." As a matter of fact I guess it's even more like that than I thought because your still glad you did it, even if nothing really happened.
To say Sherlock Holmes isn't Guy Ritchie's best film really isn't an insult either. With a filmography that includes Snatch. , Rock'n Rolla and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels that's pretty much like saying Minority Report isn't your favorite Spielberg film. Still, he does some beautiful things with this film, not the least of which is snatching slow-motion back from the frothing jaws of bullet-time, which seems to be the only thing anyone wants to use it for anymore.
The mysteries are certainly true to the style of Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle's writing. And the re-imagining of Holmes into a capable fighter who uses his brilliance to fuel his brutal martial arts is interesting (and beautifully filmed), but it's just not enough to make me recommend this movie. In Rachel McAdam's character we are offered what feels like a rather interesting bit of back story headed our way, but it's left at just that- a feeling. Standing alone this is an interesting choice, but placed in an already lean movie it feels a bit like a tease.
To everyone who asks me I tell them that unless they love one of the leading men it could be worth relegating to home theater status. But I consider myself a bit of a fan of Robert Downey Jr. and still was unimpressed. Sherlock Holmes doesn't do anything wrong in so many words, it just lacks that certain tang to pique interest. While the movie certainly wasn't a waste of my money or my time, in the end I'd say my favorite choices for the main characters are still Data and Geordi LaForge.


Reel Deal Recommends:
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang: A seriously great film starring Jr. that not nearly enough people saw.
Road to Perdition: Jude Law stepping out of his usual in a hugely moving story.
Time Traveler's Wife: McAdams helps prove that good sci-fi has a heart.

Resolving Resolutions with Resolute Resolution

Warning: 2010 spoilers!

Oh, what would a blog be without a post about new years resolutions? Resolutionless, that's what it would be. And while I have, of course, set some personal resolutions (stop kicking puppies, tell more people that crack is whack- that sort of thing), but I'm going to spare you all of that and get straight to the important stuff: Movies.

So, these are my movie resolutions for 2010.

1.) See more Independent and Foreign films.

When I first moved to Chicago, I used to love dragging Watcher X down the red-line to the one theater that both played first run Independent and Foreign films, and was remotely close to my apartment. I still remember being floored by The Last Mistress, and utterly appalled by Blood: The Last vampire in it's questionably comfortable seats.

But then our $5 theater re-opened and we got busy, and before I new it we hadn't been there in almost a year. I miss it. While my "only foreign films" phase ended at 20, I still enjoy them. So this year, we're going back! To the dismay of the aforementioned company.

2.) Bring back Instant Cassette.

Originally Instant Cassette was moth-balled when I went through a "re-discovery" rental phase. I was queueing up a lot of older movies I'd missed, and re-watching some I hadn't seen in years (I'm still to young to say "decades", and "decade" just sounds silly). But as the new-borns have re-entered my lists I think it's time old girl came back- not to mention I've still got stuff to say about the old titles.

3.) Expand my movie library.

This one is already underway as four (count 'em, 4) titles have made their way onto the floating shelves in the living-room since Christmas. That's two a week. Now obviously that's a pace I can't keep up but still it's a good start. My goal: Fill a whole, new shelf.

4.) Watch more movies with good friends.

If this vacation has taught me -or rather reminded- me of anything, it's the people I barely get to see now that I live in Illinois, and how much I loved watching movies with them! In the words of Veruca Salt: "I want more!"

Names to watch for 2010:

Columbus Short: I'm still putting my money on this one. His proven he could be leading man material- I wanna see him back it up with some meatier roles... Preferably ones in better movies than the completely unnecessary remake of 2007's Death at a Funeral.

Amanda Seyfried: I know a lot of people would disagree but I think this girl is going places. She's shown some range in the last couple years, I say we give her room to gallop and see what she does. She's certainly gonna be out there in 2010, let's hope their not all Nicholas Sparks adaptations.

Sam Worthington: 2009 was truly a break-out year for Worthington. He didn't do much in the middle but he emerged from domestic obscurity by beginning and ending the year with near-perfect performances in two huge titles... though one was admittedly "huger" than the other.

Zoe Saldana: Might as well put these two back to back. Not only did they have rather similar years, but that "huger" movie I mentioned before? They're in it together don'tcha know. All the same, we got to see her (or at least her movments and facial features) branch out a bit this year. I expect good things. Besides, even if I didn't she'd still be worth watching... literally... cause she's really good looking...

Diablo Cody: Once can be a fluke. Twice can be a coincidence. But three is a pattern. Here's hoping for a pattern.

The Wolfman: Anyone who knows me knows I'm partial to the furriest of all the "monsters", but that aside, this movie is looking better and better. Co-written by Andrew Walker (the same man who brought us Se7en among others) and chalk full of names that are actually worth mentioning, The Wolfman is at least worth considering even if your not excited like I am. But wait, there's more...

If The Wolfman turns out to be a win, it could be a tally in more than just the "classic movie re-makes" column. You see, director Joe Johnston's got another big name on his plate following Wolfman. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's a little art house film called First Avenger: Captain America. He's put his mark on the world of visual effects with other lesser known projects like... oh, I don't know... the original Star Wars trilogy, and as a Director he has a respectable -if not a bit fluffy- track record, but Wolfman would signify not only the biggest name on his record, but also the darkest.

Put simply, a great Wolfman would not only please me greatly, but also help ease my nerves when it comes time for Cap's modern debut.

So there you have it. A brief look through my eyes into the coming year. Stay tuned for my (holiday delayed) review of Sherlock Holmes. I hope the holidays found you well gentle reader; Happy New Year! And remember, crack is whack.