Movie Review: 'I Love You, Man'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

Yeah, that's right -- a movie review. Bet you forgot I even did these anymore. After three months without one, I think I did, too. But with Spring spring, and summer blockbusters just around the corner, you can expect to see some more, so let's get back in the flow, yo:

The "bromantic comedy" has become a staple of the male 18-34 demo comedy, especially among the Judd Apatow mafia -- 'Superbad' and 'Pineapple Express' are tow recent examples. Though the idea that two straight guys can have a "romance" of sorts, has been a subplot in many movies lately, John Hamburg's 'I Love You, Man' takes it to the next logical step -- giving it all the usual conceits and structure of a romantic comedy.

Hamburg (of 'Meet the Parents' fame) directs, and also co-wrote the script with Larry Levin. Paul Rudd, usually a bit player as the best friend, or one of the gang, plays the lead. With Jason Segel playing his platonic love interest. Rudd's Peter and Segel's Sydney have all the familiar plot points in their bromance -- meet cute, awkward first date, escalating feelings, breakup, makeup, etc. The result, while not ground-breaking by any means, is effective.

Rudd is solid as the slightly off Peter, a guy who doesn't have any guy friends, and acts a little nervous and creepy when he does get around one. Rudd normally plays the glib, easy going type, so it's a bit odd to see him "play down" to Peter, especially since it's his story, and the movie rests on his shoulders. It's during this time the movie suffers through its only real uncertainty. Frankly, it's a little hard to buy Peter's charm with the ladies coupled with his awkwardness with men. The bubbling, and especially the babbling lingo he utters, gets a bit much at times, but Rudd still manages to pull it off with his charming, easy-to-root-for persona.

Peter's lack of a strong personality early on is off-set by those around him. His fiancee, Zooey (Rashidi Jones), and her friends Denise and Hailey (a decent Jaime Pressley and a great Sarah Burns, respectively) are plain-speaking and colorful, as is Denise's husband Barry (a nasty John Favreau). The quality ensemble casting continues throughout Peter's family -- loving mom (Jane Curtain), distant dad (JK Simmons), and gay brother (Andy Samburg). These supporting characters, along with a few others (most notably, Thomas Lennon), help carry the story until Segel shows up at the first act break.

Once Segel's Sydney does arrive, he shakes up Peter's world, giving him -- and the movie -- the electricity he/it needs. He's Peter's polar opposite (fulfilling another rom-com staple) -- confident, relaxed, and seemingly apathetic about how others see him. Sydney helps draw Peter from his shell -- drinking, jamming, going to a concert, even pushing him to work harder at his real estate job. Segel is great as Sydney, keeping the laughs coming, and adding a much-needed wild card into the mix. His riffs on society's habits and rules are the highlights of the movie.

'I Love You, Man' is solid, if not revelatory comedy by talented professionals. It's the kind of movie you shouldn't rush out to see, but it is the kind you should enjoy if you do.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'I Love You, Man':

RECOMMEND

Movie Review: 'The Wrestler'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

’The Wrestler’ is one of those films which, when they end, leave you sitting in silence, unable to completely digest what you’ve just seen. If you see it with somebody, you may just sit there as the credits roll, not gathering your things, not making any move to go. That’s the kind of film this is.

I kept thinking about ’The Wrestler’ long after it was over. Not so much the film, but the character -- has-been 80’s wrestler Randy “The Ram” Robinson, personified by Mickey Rourke. And I do mean “personified”, because while Rourke is acting here -- and acting beautifully -- rather than merely playing himself, we can’t deny the obvious. We can’t deny that we think of Robinson and Rourke as one and the same at times during the film. How could we not?

When Randy talks about being on top, and losing it, but not wanting to give up, how can we not imagine that the “sense memory” Rourke, an old school method actor, is using probably has to do with his film career? And in a very dramatic late speech, Rourke could clearly be seen as talking about himself when he talks about why he doesn’t quit wrestling.

But none of this should take away from Rourke’s performance. On the contrary, it adds to the viewer’s enjoyment. And Rourke is clearly working hard here. His body is pumped up to larger than life proportions, making him look the part. And he does his thing in the ring, taking the kind of punishment for his performance most wrestlers have to endure. But Randy has to endure a much heavier price than most wrestler’s.

After a long career, his body and broken and bent, and he requires numerous pills just to keep going. To make matters worse, he’s forced to take some job which require him to take ridiculous amount of punishment. I won’t spoil it here, but let’s just say a staple gun is involved. But Rourke balances this tough, battered exterior with a tender, playful (but also battered) interior. He love to play with the kids in his trailer park, he clearly have a lot of love for his fellow wrestlers. He’s sad, destitute, and damaged, but he has an easy smile, and a playful heart.

Caring is a sneaky little thread throughout ’The Wrestler’. You see it, most surprisingly -- and refreshingly -- between the wrestlers. They obvious have a lot of empathy and respect for each other, playfully choreographing their match and act as enemies in the ring. You see it in Randy’s need for a romantic connection with Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), a stripper who, despite their close relationship, charges him for lap dances. You see it is Randy’s need to ask for forgiveness from his daughter Stephanie (Rachel Evan Wood) for a lifetime of neglect. And you see it between Randy and his fans -- the one relationship Randy hasn’t let whither.

The film doesn’t look or feel like it was drafted by uber-talented director, Darren Aronofsky. His previous work has been much more stylish and impressive visually -- with the possible drawback of being a bit showy. This film is like the Bruce Springsteen song which plays over it’s closing credits -- gritty, bare bones, and straight-forward. It looks like someone’s first film more than a slick Hollywood director, but in a good, purposeful way.

As a matter of fact, Aronofsky reportedly could have had a lot more money for the budget had he accepted Nicholas cage as his star. But Aronofsky fought for Rourke, and I think him for it. Rather than a polished “Look Oscars, vote for this!” feel, it has the soul of a sleeper. Part of that comes from the great script by Robert Siegel. It’s never too melodramatic, but also makes its point. It doesn’t have a big Hollywood ending, nor should it. It tells its story the only way it seeming could. It seems perfect in its smallness.

The cast is also perfect. Marisa Tomei has just the right mix of sweetness and savvy. She likes this big lug, but she wouldn’t be opposed to working him for some cash. She’s almost as desperate as he is, and in just as unforgiving a dead-end profession -- both are made for the young, and they aren’t young anymore. Their situations and relationship seems so real, it’s a little painful to watch. Rachel Evan Wood is able to convey a lifetime of hurt in a short period of time, and turns a small role into a memorable one.

Randy wants to go straight, but there’s something people say about that involving an old dog and some new tricks. Randy’s been trained to live his life a certain way -- an uncompromising way -- and it’s too late to change now. He presents an interesting dichotomy in hos working life -- he wants the respect of having his chosen name on his name tag, but doesn’t want to be recognized for who he is. He’s sorry for a lot of things, but never feels sorry for himself. He just wants to make it through another day, and maybe find someone he cares about to care about him -- just like the rest of us.

’The Wrestler’ is a great film in the tradition of dramas about working class heroes, like ’Rocky’ and ’On the Waterfront’. It may not be a classic, but will earn raves for Rourke, and I’d be shocked if he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. If I had my way, he’d win.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'The Wrestler':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

Movie Review: 'Frost/Nixon'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

Growing up, I always knew who David Frost was, but I never knew quite why. He was just someone people interviewed every once in a while on TV. And whenever anyone did, they always asked about Richard Nixon. Since I was a kid, I didn't watch long enough to find out anything more than he had interviewed Nixon once. And, somehow, through the years, I never learned much more than that. So it was with that almost total ignorance of the background of 'Frost/Nixon' that I saw the movie.

Of course, I knew Richard Nixon had been President. I knew about Watergate. "I am not a crook". The resignation. The pardon. All that jazz. But I had never seen a single clip of the Frost/Nixon interviews, nor had I seen screenwriter/playwright Peter Morgan's play of the same same name, which premiered in 2006. Morgan adapted the play for the screen, turning what what essentially a two-man production into a ensemble. Added are minor characters in each man's camp, and a framing device in the form of periodic snippets of documentary-style interviews. These elements are a bit hit-and-miss, as opposed to the rock-solid core of the film -- the two leads.

Frank Langella reprises his role as Nixon, the role which won him a Tony Award for the stage version. Langella's superb performance springs from his decision to eschew a impersonation in favor of an interpretation. Rather than mimic a literal imitation of Nixon' shaky jowls and outsized personal ticks, and focus more on the essence of the man. After all, Langella doesn't look like Nixon -- and he's at least four inches taller -- but he's able to nail the toxic mix of arrogance and insecurity which made Nixon such a fascinating character. And by the end, he manages to make Nixon a sympathetic figure.

Michael Sheen plays Frost, a lightweight British TV personality, who bought his way into an exclusive interview with the disgraced ex-President. Sheen also hits the mark on his subject as well, perfectly capturing Frost's pompous charm as well as the small fire inside to advance past his current station. As the film progresses, he allows that fire to burn brighter and brighter until Frost is forced to become an actual journalist, playing at the highest level, against a legendary foe. Sheen has made a habit of playing historical figures in political films written by Morgan -- previously, he played former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in both 'The Deal', 'The Queen'. Recently, he signed on to complete the Morgan/Blair Triple Crown.

Sure-handed, populist director Ron Howard allows his actors time to play off one another. There are long pauses in their dialogues, reaction shots, and a theatrical pace to their scenes together. Another director might have made it a bit more far-reaching, a bit more unique, but Howard does what he does best -- tell a straight-forward story without getting too bogged down with stylish nuance. And while this film won't wow too many people, it's far better than the mess Oliver Stone might've turned in. (What am I saying? Stone already turned in that mess.)

The second act takes on the Frost/Nixon interviews from 1977, making it its main focus, and this section is the strength of the film. Highlights include the banter between the men, the glimpses of Nixon humor, and the behind-the-scenes machinations of Team Frost as they attempt to take down Nixon on camera. Nixon's competitive nature turns the interviews into a verbal duel of the electronic age, the likes of which had never been seen. After more Americans watched the tapes than had ever seen a news program in history, it began a trend of celebrity tell-all interviews which still exist. (And which made Barbara Walters a millionaire.) It's a battle of wits, each man with a whole lot riding on the outcome, which both of them agree can have only one winner.

As Frost's inability to pin Nixon down early on raises tensions, and Nixon's competitiveness raises the stakes, the film is at its most watchable. Frost's need to dedicate himself and Nixon's self-destructive bent are both illuminating and enthralling subplots. The high point of the film for me was a late night phone call between the two late in the second act. Speaking alone, with no prying eyes or ears, both men disarmed, as it were.

The weak link in the chain is the thread which runs throughout, used to hold frame the entire story -- the present time documentary-style footage. It's a familiar crutch and doesn't really move the story forward. The supporting cast, however, is a strength. Sam Rockwell is great as James Reston, Jr., an emotional force of nature who lights that fire under Frost, pushing him to take on Nixon full bore. Oliver Platt is Bob Zelnick, another member of Team Frost. Kevin Bacon is Jack Brennan, a member of Team Nixon. Rebecca Hall is Frost's main squeeze.

'Frost/Nixon' is a solid piece of filmmaking, which offends nobody, and entertains everybody. But it's not a masterpiece. It's the Best Picture (though a nomination wouldn't surprise me. I guess you could say, I like it, but I don't like like it. For instance, I haven't been able to stop thinking about 'Benjamin Button' since I saw it, and I might want to see it again. This film, I might see again, sometime down the road on cable. 'Button' I might see in the next couple of weeks.* In other words, I might need to consider revising my scoring system as not all "HIGHLY RECOMMEND's" are created equal. As it is, it's that good -- no more, no less.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Frost/Nixon':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

* Part of this is because, like 'Frost/Nixon', I saw 'Button' on an Academy screener. And even though I have a large, widescreen TV and surround sound, I think the amazing visual wizardry of 'Button' needs to be witnessd on a big screen.

Movie Review: 'Defiance'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

’Defiance’ just may be my JEFME film of the year. The JEFME formula relies heavily on a film’s ending and the viewer’s expectations heading in. Despite ranking it at #7 on my Top 10 list of movies I still wanted to see this year, I didn’t have particularly high hopes.

Some other movies had climbed above it, and I hadn’t heard much hype about it. I still haven’t heard much hype, but now I’m beginning to wonder why. I’m sure its subject matter has something to do with it. It is a true story about three Jewish brothers who escaped Nazi-occupied Poland into the Belarussian forest, where one joined the Russian resistance while the other two built a village in order to protect themselves from the Nazis. That’s not blockbuster material. But it’s not like ’Doubt’ is the feel-good movie of the holiday season, and I see hype for that everywhere I look.

But hype or no hype -- and JEFME or no JEFME -- I thought it was one of the 10 best movies I saw this year. Of course, now that you’ve read this, your expectations will be raised so that JEFME mojo will be working against you. And ’Defiance’ won’t be for everybody -- it’s a dark, intense drama that takes character and arc more seriously then fight scenes. The result is more ’Schindler’s List’ than ’Saving Private Ryan’.

Liev Schrieber and Daniel Craig are Zus and Tuvia Bielski, respectively. Brothers who share pain and anger, but direct it in very different ways, their dual stories -- both together and apart -- shape the story. Their stormy, competitive relationship with each other, the differing roads they choose to take following their escape from Poland, and the different, but diverging paths they take to salvation are the driving forces within the story, and their performances carry the film. Each give their characters multi-layered, complicated, vivid personas, which makes their incredible journeys that much more rewarding.

Along for the ride is younger brother Asael Bielski (Jamie Bell). He’s asked to go toe to toe with some serious talent and comes through like a champ. The brothers have all lost their parents, and soon lose more than that. They have no homes, no lives, no future. Tuvia and Asael choose to build a village and stay with the other Jews who drift in from time to time, borrowing (and stealing) food from nearby farms to survive. While the more combative Zus goes off with Russian Resistance fighters to kill Nazis for revenge.

In the camp, the Brothers Bielski fall for women but life is not easy. They are racked with famine and disease, and have to do unsettling things to survive. Not to mention the camp politics when the group swells, and food rations are scarce. The storylines are many, varied, and each delicately portrayed.

Weaving together all the threads seamlessly are co-screenwriters Clayton Frohman and Ed Zwick, who also directed. The script is adapted from the non-fiction book ’Defiance: the Bielski Partisans’. It’s an amazing story, and I’m surprised it’s taken this long to see it told on the screen. Maybe the similar ’Schindler’s List’ stole its thunder, but this story is just as heroic, and its effects are just as far-reaching.

A heroic story carries no guarantee of good film, however, and Zwick deserves a lot credit for making sure the facts fit into a coherent, and entertaining structure. Zwick does here what he always does, telling a politically-charged story (see: 'Glory', 'Blood Diamond', etc) in a straight-forward, matter of fact, Ron Howard-like way -- short of style, long on substance.

Judging by the aforementioned lack of hype, I guess Zwick and company's efforts will go largely un-rewarded this awards season (its only Golden Globes nomination was for Original Score), but it’s one of the better films of December -- the prestige opening period in Hollywood.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Defiance':

RECOMMEND

Movie Review: 'Revolutionary Road'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

’Revolutionary Road’ is one of those films that is almost too perfect to miss. Emphasis on the “almost”. The film is adapted from an acclaimed and beloved novel by Richard Yates. It is directed by one of the better directors around, in Sam Mendes. And it stars two of the very best actors going -- Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet (Mendes’ real-life wife). But that pedigree only gets you so far -- specifically, in the door to the theater.

Once the lights go out, all we have is what’s on film. And even if it looks beautiful, and is exquisitely acted -- and this film is all that -- you need to care about the characters on-screen and their predicaments. And that’s where this elegant film falls woefully short. No matter how much life DiCaprio and Winslet try to pump into their characters -- Frank and April Wheeler, Connecticut suburbanites in the 1950’s -- I couldn’t bring myself to care. Much of the blame for that must fall on the shoulders of Justin Haythe, a novelist-turned-screenwriter whose only other credit was 2004’s ’The Clearing’.

The major problem with the structure of the story announces itself almost immediately. After a brief opening scene in which Frank and April meet and share small talk at a party, we are suddenly thrust forward, years into their marriage. Because of this, all the themes the film will go on to explore -- the dreams and desires which the Wheelers subverted in favor of marriage, family, and safety -- fall flat. We never see the moments that led to these decisions, these compromises, these transactions. If I had seen the metamorphosis these people made from youthful dreamers to middle-age parents, I might feel more for those lost dreams. Instead, they’re like that couple at the party who can’t stop bickering -- you just wish they’d shut up.

I never read the novel, but my wife (whom I trust implicitly) has, and loved it. She claims the book spent more time on the earlier portions of Frank and April’s relationship. This might’ve given us time to grow to like them before they became so bored and unhappy -- imprisoned by the safeness of their lives. We might’ve better understood their sacrifices, and felt the impending dread of the walls lowly closing around them. Instead, I actually found myself wondering if the Academy Awards screener DVD I was watching had skipped a few scenes accidently.

It’s not like the film is so rigorously paced that they didn’t have room to include those early getting-to-know-you scenes. Much of the second act is spent watching the same fights over the same things over and over -- if anything could’ve been trimmed, it’s this. Showing a banal, suburban life is part of the story, but it also gets a little, well, banal. I’m sure the novel was quite good -- for the same reason the film isn’t -- because so much of what makes the story go takes place between the characters ears. Thoughts, feelings and unconscious are the realm of literature, action is the realm of film.

In that regard, this film is sorely lacking. The characters often talk about their plans, their feelings, their desires, but they rarely act on them. Maybe that’s the point -- save for some sexual dalliances here and there. But unlike the subject of the famous line by Henry David Thoreau, their lives may be desperate, but they’re not at all silent. It’s hard to like people when they’re too busy whining about how unhappy they are.

That’s not to say this film is not filled with both a fascinating portrait of a specific time and place, and also a painfully realistic view of the bittersweet institution of marriage. But one can find a better portrait of 50’s-type culture in AMC’s ’Mad Men’ (I know, technically, it’s the early 60’s). Here, the time period is used more as a curiosity than a meaningful backdrop. And a more realistic portrait of marriage at my house, so why go to the movies? I guess the answer to that would be “To see Leo and Kate, stupid!”

The two stars, reunited for the first time since their smashing, record-setting first go-around in ’Titanic’ in 1997, hold up their end. DiCaprio’s Frank is a frustrated dreamer, too big for his little job, but to addicted to comfort and safety to toss it aside. Winslet’s April, on the other hand, is only too ready to toss all the constraints of suburban life -- nevermind the fact they have two children and another on the way. The story takes us into all the dark corners of the “settled down” life, with its stupid bosses, nosy neighbors, and painted on smiles. It leads us to a conclusion that is once heartbreaking yet predictable, dramatic yet antiseptic.

But sometimes the greatest sign a movie doesn’t work is the jarring aspect of the parts which do. In ’Revolutionary Road’, there’s a small subplot involving the Wheelers’ neighbor and real estate agent, Helen (Kathy Bates), and her family which is more compelling than anything between Leo and Kate. Michael Shannon’s performance as Helen’s troubled son John threatens to steal the film, and a late scene between Helen and her husband is the most telling in the film.

As a study of its subject, ’Revolutionary Road’ is fine -- like a painting of a bowl of fruit that nails all the shades and shapes just right. But as an involving, entertaining story, it’s not much better than that same painting. In this way it’s like ’Doubt’, though that film is better -- it had more vivid characters, better dialogue, and a more relatable, better fleshed-out storyline. This has the same great acting, fantastic set design and costumes, and little else. For some, that may be enough. Others will get about halfway through before feeling much like the Wheelers -- trapped in the middle of something we’re not sure we want to carry through with any longer.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Revolutionary Road':

CONSIDER

TV Review: 'Leverage'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

[Before we start, a quick site update: I know I said my 'Revolutionary Road' review was up next, and it is -- among my movie reviews. But first I caught up on all the back episodes of this new TNT show in the last few days, so I thought I'd throw up a review of that first. But, while I may throw up a Link Dump or some random videos over the holiday, I promise my next "real" post will be my review of 'Revolutionary Road' after Christmas. Okay, that's it -- carry on.]

’Leverage’ is about a band of ex-thieves who band together to run undercover scams to help people who can’t help themselves. Kind of like ’The Equalizer’ meets ’The A-Team’. It sounds okay on paper, but some elements seem to be out of whack.

Firstly, the backgrounds of the team. Their leader, Nathan Ford (Timothy Hutton) is not ex-CIA, but an ex-insurance investigator. I’m sure in this line of work, one could learn many different scams, and shortcuts to getting what you want, but when one old acquaintance bring up a foreign coup he was involved in, you begin to wonder if the writers understand what an insurance investigator actually does.

Also, it’s not entirely clear if (or how) the jobs they do put any money in their pockets. And if they’re doing it purely from a vigilante/charity perspective -- and must spend a ton of money pulling them off -- then should we assume they are all independently wealthy ex-thieves?

Other problems include the uneven nature of the characters, tone and acting. Timothy Hutton is great as Ford, a smart, charming weasel with a heart of gold. He brings his Oscar-winning acting talent, but a low-key approach which be-fits a show that's trying no to take itself too seriously. But the rest of his crew can’t keep up. Honestly, they're like the people left over after all the other shows got to have their pick.

Christian Kane is stiff as Elliot, a tough guy with a nerdy name. He tries to pull off the kind of raspy snarl another Christian (Bale) made famous in Batman, but unlike Bale, the cheesiness factor overcomes the toughness he projects. Both the women in the crew -- Sophie (Gina Bellman) and Parker (Beth Riesgraf) -- are asked to do quite a bit of comedy, which doesn’t fit in with the tone very well. It’s not that the women aren’t up for it -- they are -- it’s that the bits they are asked to perform involve gags so broad that they disrupt the tone of the show and take viewers out of the moment. The worst of these moments come in ’Family Guy’-type unmotivated cutaways and flashback for comedy beats which just aren’t worth all the trouble.

The best part of the crew, besides Hutton, is Aldis Hodge, the wise-talking black guy. Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Wait, the cliched ‘wise-talking black guy”? is a good thing?” Well, not really. But at least they turned him into an anti-cliche -- a computer hacker and information guy, rather than a street smart hood. But he’s still left to make quippy one-liners a la Chris Tucker.

If the comedy could be refined a little -- maybe if creators Chris Downey and John Rodgers just resigned themselves to not trying so hard -- the mixed tones of scams and comedy might work. There’s certainly enough recent history of success in this endeavor -- ’Burn Notice’ and the ’Ocean’s Eleven’ franchise come to mind. But this show isn’t there yet.

It may come in time, especially given Hutton’s good work. But first, the must find a way to raise the rest of the cast’s game to meet Hutton’s, or replace them with those who can. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if by the end of the first season, or the beginning of the second, another more heralded actor who can match Hutton’s talent is brought in. Probably an actress, maybe an old flame.

Until then, the show is worth watching as light fare only, not to be taken very seriously. Which it seems their network, TNT, already realizes: Their ad campaign for the show includes one spot which quotes a critic who describes the show as “better than the last two ’Ocean’s Eleven’ movies. With that ad, TNT seems to be saying, “Hey, it’s not great TV or anything, but it’s not complete crap.”

I, for one, agree.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Leverage':

CONSIDER

Movie Review: 'Doubt'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

Doubt is a very well done film. So well done I feel bad criticizing it. But that’s exactly what I’m going to do. The film features such great performances -- by the whole cast, really -- it’s almost impossible not to like, and I did like it to some extent. But there’s a staleness to it. A stiffness not just by choice, but by an inertia of plot. An inability to expose much in terms of information, either as story, or backstory.

What there is centers around a priest, Father Brendan Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who we get the feeling is new to this catholic school. Father Flynn gives good sermon -- we find that out right away, in the opening scene. We soon learn he’s good with the boys -- maybe too good. He’s clearly taken a special interest in one young African-American boy. And Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep) is suspicious there may be something more to it than that. And that’s about as far as the film gets, exploring that doubt, the lengths to which her suspicions will drive her, and the repercussions, which -- without spoiling too much -- aren’t exactly earth-shattering.

Character studies don’t necessarily rely on plot, however, and the film does feature a few interesting characters, and one absolutely terrifying one -- Sister Aloysius, who hisses more than speaks, and scares the bejesus out of every boy in the school -- and most of the faculty. Her right hand (or stooge) is Sister James (a meek and mousey Amy Adams), who does her bidding, digs up information to aid her drive to know all there is to know about Father Flynn. Her fixation drives the movie, and Streep performance carries the film.

Hoffman is also great, and is Adams. So is Viola Davis, who plays the boy in question’s mother, and steals the movie with the cold realism of her opening scene. The acting is so great because they have room to just act -- there’s no driving story or subtext to get in their way. That’s why I’m sure it was a great play -- because that art form is for actors. At times, this seemed like like a movie, and more like the best acting class you could ever stumble in on.

While Streep will get all the accolades and award nominations for her role -- and deservedly so -- Hoffman has to show more range. He goes from happy and friendly to outraged, never missing a beat. We never know if he's the nice priest unfairly badgered, or the too-nice guy who's able to use that "he'd never do something like that" persona to cover his intentions. Streep is the film's star though, and her character is its most memorable element. She not only serves as the face of the movie, she might serve that position for the entire Catholic church of that era.

Of course, ’Doubt’ was an award-winning play, written by John Patrick Shanley, who adapted it for the big screen and directed it as well. This isn’t anywhere near Shanley’s first screenwriting gig -- he won an Oscar for ’Moonstruck’ in 1987, and has done all kinds of work, from critically acclaimed indies (’Five Corners’) and TV movies (’Live From Baghdad’) to literary adaptations for big budget studio films (’Alive’, ’Congo’). Shanley has directed before, but it’s not really something he can boast about. He was the guy who couldn’t make a ton of money by putting Meg Ryan and Tom hanks in a movie in the 90’s. Of course, he was the first to try -- he wrote and directed the big budget flop, ’Joe Versus The Volcano’ in 1990 (four years before Nora Ephron made the first of two huge hits with Hanks and Ryan).

As a director, Shanley does a credible job -- the film is aesthetically pleasing -- but overdoes it a bit with the dutch angles (when the camera is purposely titled at a diagonal angle). Maybe it’s to overcome the lack of action. Otherwise, he lets the actors do what they do best, which is a considerable help. As is his ability as writer to keep the audience guessing as to whether Sister Aloysius is crazy, or if she may just be on to something.

But since not much happens along the way, and the ending is anti-climactic, the writing falls a distant second to the actors. If that’s enough for you, you’ll probably love ’Doubt’, If not, steer clear.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Doubt':

CONSIDER

Next up: 'Revolutionary Road'

Movie Review: 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

Woody Allen has long been obsessed with death, so it’s a bit surprising that it took him until now to make a truly, and honestly sexual film in ’Vicky Cristina Barcelona’. It’s not forced, it’s not creepy, it’s just real. And real sexy.

Maybe it’s an easier task, to properly sexify a film when you have the kind of talent -- and I do mean talent -- Allen has to work with here. Scarlett Johnasson and Penelope Cruz rank among the sexiest women working in film today, so having them in sex scenes with a man is compelling, and having them in a sex scene with each other is downright miraculous. But it’s relative unknown Rebecca Hall who steals the film -- both in term of acting, and sex appeal.

Hall plays Vicky, an uptight young woman engaged to Doug, an uptight young man. She wouldn’t look so sexually repressed if she weren’t paired with best friend, Cristina (Johansson), a voluptuous sexpot (does Johansson ever play anything else?). The two nubile young ladies travel to Barcelona for a summer adventure.

And lest you think there’s nothing out there for the (non-lesbian) women, Javier Bardem plays Juan Antonio, a Spanish artist with animal magnetism and arrogance to spare. He sweeps both women off their feet to various degrees. Cristina is after him right away -- befitting her unpretentious hedonism and thirst for life’s experiences. Vicky is slower to admit her feelings -- befitting her repressed sexuality and cautious demeanor.

Throwing another wrench into the works is Maria Elena (Cruz), Juan Antonio’s fiery artist ex-wife, who we learn early on has attacked him with a knife. They hate each other, but motivate and inspire each other’s art. The fire and ice relationship between them is one of the highlights of the film due to Bardem and Cruz’s fine performances. Bardem is always this good, so it's no surprise to see him nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical. But Cruz snagged a Golden Globe nomination herself -- for Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role -- because this role suits her particularly well. Watching them together, I couldn’t help but be reminded of painful, dysfunctional relationships in my past -- as well the passion which caused them to last as long as they did. It's a vivid portrayal.

Speaking of Bardem, it’s great to see more manly central male figures in Allen’s work, rather than Allen himself, or one of the many thinly-veiled versions of him he's used for years. Bardem's Juan Antonio couldn’t be more different -- bold, decisive, unfettered by neuroses. There is an uptight neurotic man in the film, Doug, who represents the polar opposite of Juan Antonio. Doug is safe and logical, Juan Antonio is dangerous and emotional. It’s battle for Vicky’s heart, waged between rational mind and raging id.

Vicky prefers safe and real -- or thinks she does -- then reaches out unconsciously for excitement. Cristina openly pursues excitement, then backs away when it’s not real enough. These women represent all women -- all people, really -- constantly deciding exactly where that risk/reward meter is in most balance with what’s in our soul. And how much that meter can swing one way or the other when you're young.

Johnasson is great playing a familiar role, but Hall is a revelation -- simultaneously sexy and prudish, like the librarian from your dreams. She's already gotten a Golden Globe nomination for Best Performance by an Actress, and if she's doesn't recieve more acclaim and larger roles in the future I’d be very surprised -- and disappointed.

This isn't a perfect movie by any means. While this is Allen’s best work in quite awhile -- much fresher and more vibrant -- he's not re-inventing the wheel here. 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona' is another Allen film featuring overlapping storylines involving sexual indiscretions, and never rises above the usual Allen navel-gazing He even employs a narrator to keep us updated on each characters innermost thoughts and feelings. But I love this combination he mixed up, and hope this is a sign of new direction rather than a hit among misses.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona':

RECOMMEND

Next up: 'Doubt'

Movie Review: 'Gran Torino'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

When I first saw the trailers for ’Gran Torino’, with Eastwood sneering, and pointing a gun, and growling “Get off my lawn” at some kids, I thought, “It’s ‘Dirty Harry 6: Grumpy Old Man’.” But after seeing the actual film, it’s clear his character, Walt Kowalkski, is much closer to William Munney in ’Unforgiven’ than anything else he’s done.

Walt, a retired car factory worker, is a bitter old man who’s seen too much, done things he bitterly regrets, and has resorted to hiding behind a gruff, grumpy, bigoted shell. He’s shut out his kids, his grandkids, everyone around him -- save for a drinking buddies he trades racist jokes with. His neighborhood has become filled with Hmong immigrants from Vietnam, and keeps mainly to himself.

But when Walt loses his wife, there’s a huge void in his life, and that opening dovetails with a couple of incidents with his Hmong next door neighbors, the Lors. First, Walt catches their teenage son Thao Lor (Bee Vang) trying to steal his prized possession, the titular Ford classic (which just happens to be the same model Dirty Harry used to drive). Next, he’s awoken by Thao and family’s struggle with a local Hmong gang trying to recruit him. Both feature Walt pointing a gun at the kids, but before long, he’s taken a liking to Thao and his sister, Sue (Ahney Her). He doesn’t say this, mind you -- that would be too sappy for crusty old Walt. He’s still calling them offensive things like “gook” and ”slope”, but you can see his attitude change.

What occurs in the second act is predictable -- a feel-good story of acceptance, redemption, and humanity. But Eastwood’s portrayal of Walt -- more than his technique -- lifts up the material. In fact, it’s Eastwood the director who seems to be a touch off his game here, with a couple of awkward scenes which seem overly staged. That may have something to do with the fact he used novices Vang and Her to play the two major parts besides his. More than anything, it seems Eastwood -- known for using just one take -- shot this movie in about two weeks.

But that’s not to say the film isn’t engaging. It is. And the story, while quite predictable, is easy to like. The screenwriter, novice Nick Schenk, lives in Minnesota and wrote about the world around him, so it’s no surprise it comes off as genuine. Schenk, a writer for wrestling shows, wrote the whole screenplay in a neighborhood bar before getting it to a friend in Hollywood. The script eventually made its way to Eastwood, who decided to make it without changing a word.

Because Eastwood is willing to do that -- leave things as is, without multiple re-writes and takes -- the film comes off as low maintenance, never overdone. The kids come off as real -- not “movie kids” -- and Walt’s arc seems organic and sub-textual. In short, the film never feels like an after-school special, though its message would fit there nicely (it's language would not). It’s got plenty of heart without manipulating your emotions, or trying to hard. With one exception: Eastwood’s growling -- literally growling -- to show Walt’s displeasure goes a little over the top for my tastes.

The third act is less predictable than the second, and the climax is a jarring, if not completely unexpected jolt. It’s not going to be for everybody, and I’m not sure it was 100% for me when I first saw it. But upon further reflection, I think the resolution is apt, and earned -- even foreshadowed if you think about it hard enough. The ending is sweet, but not saccharine. However, the last seconds are a bit uncomfortable as Eastwood's singing voice makes its first appearance, belting out the film's theme song. It's not that Eastwood can't hack it, I just felt it a little out of place. Perhaps, if the film was already over and the credits rolling, it might have seemed less like breaking the fourth wall to have the film's lead singing the theme song.

Small flaws aside, ’Gran Torino’ is an unexpected pleasure, a simple, touching story about the battle for one man’s soul. It isn’t popcorn cinema, nor is it an art film, but it has a little for everybody. That being said, I think there are just enough minor flaws -- a bit heavy-handed, a bit predictable, a bit stilted at times -- to keep it out of the Oscar race.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Gran Torino':

RECOMMEND

Next up: 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'

Movie Review: 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' is old school, big cinema storytelling coupled with cutting edge technology. Thematically, it's David Fincher's take on 'Forrest Gump' -- a typically darker, more haunting tale, replacing the lightness and innocence of 'Gump' with the mystical brooding of this (almost) modern day fairy tale. The two films have the same screenwriter, Eric Roth, both mine Southern culture of the past for its background, and have their protagonists bump up against history now and again. But the similarities end there -- while 'Gump' delivers plenty of joy and laughs as it meditates on the subjects of fate and destiny, 'Button' is less whimsical and more haunting while delving into the mysteries of life and death.

Roth adapted the screenplay from a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, which chronicles, well, the curious case of Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt), a man who ages backwards. But Roth uses only the major conceit of the original story, crafting entirely new details to frame Button's life. In Fitzgerald's tale, Button is born as a 70-year old in 1860 Baltimore, raised by his father, grows up (down?) to have children of his own, and eventually, as an old man, attends Kindergarten with his own grandson.

In Roth's take (Robin Swicord shares "screen story by" credit), Benjamin is born in New Orleans on the night World War I ends, essentially, in the body of an old man. He's small like a baby, and cries like a baby, but is wrinkled, and gray. His mother dies in child-birth and his father, panicked at seeing his freakish son, dumps him on a random doorstep. Coincidentally (or ironically if you're feeling liberal), it's the doorstep of an old folks home, where he's taken in by Queenie (Taraji P. Henson), a live-in employee at the home, whose whole life is spent caring for those who can't care for themselves anymore. Queenie takes the child to a doctor, who reveals he has all the typical ailments of an old man, and likely only has a short time to live. Queenie pledges to make Benjamin's remaining time as comfortable as possible, and raises the boy as her own.

It quickly becomes apparent the child is aging backward -- becoming stronger, growing hair, etc. -- as he grows. He meets the love of his life -- Daisy (Elle Fanning) -- as a child, but looks like an old man. (It's as creepy as it sounds.) He has the joy, the curiosity, even the sexual appetites, 0f a younger man, but the world sees him as an old man. When he must reassure a tugboat captain (Jared Harris) that he has the strength to do the work of a deck hand in order to land his first job, "Captain Mike" takes pity on what he thinks is a man past his prime. Really, Benjamin's adventures are just beginning. The boat takes him around the world, introduces him to sex, and alcohol, and different cultures, and even into battle in World War II. The adventures we follow him on are somewhat episodic, but they are eminently watchable.

The film is all Fincher -- visually sleek and smooth, using special effects to great benefit (especially in the odd aging -- or is that de-aging? -- of Benjamin), but not overly concerned with warmth. His cinematography and sense of style is stellar as always, the set design and costumes (especially in New Orleans) is just superb. Fincher et al creates a colorful world, and allows Benjamin to explore it. He's not the most proactive protagonist, but you still root for him to overcome his "unusual circumstances". You can't take your eyes off the screen, and anticipate the next stage of Benjamin's life with wonder, but I don't know that you feel as much as you could. Living up to his reputation, he tells an amazing story, and he does it in an extremely artful way, but he keeps his subjects at arm's length. But it's not so much a failing as a choice. I didn't mind it -- I love Fincher's style, much in same way I love Michael Mann's -- but one does wonder what a more emotionally evocative director might have done it (a Ron Howard or Clint Eastwood probably would've had more people crying at the end). But the film is still involving, even moving.

Pitt is very good here in a tremendously hard role to play. He's not just playing someone at all ages of their life, but having to play different internal and external ages simultaneously. As an adventurous, wide-eyed boy on the inside, Benjamin's stuck in an elderly man's body, complete with arthrytis, bad posture, etc. Pitt does a great job mixing the creaky unease of old age with the wonder of youth. Fincher and his team of special effects people are able to use Pitt's heavily made-up face on a small, shriveled-up body, and keep it looking real. the film's budget was reportedly in the $150 million range, and it shows.

Blanchett is great as the grown up Daisy, Pitt's star-crossed lover -- the Jenny to his Forrest -- though her performance as the elderly Daisy during the framing device used to tell Benjamin's story seems a bit forced (more on that in a moment). They're nearly the same age, but look to be polar opposites. But as time goes on, they meet physically, going in opposite directions, then pass right by. A relationship is hard to pull off when half your life one of you appears to others to be in a pedophile. Some of the lesser names in the cast also give standout performances. Henson, who was amazing in 'Hustle & Flow', is great as Queenie -- all love and sweetness. Harris brings a memorable joy and saltiness to Captain Mike, who steals much of the second act. And Tilda Swinton shows a (slightly) softer side as a love interest of Benjamin's.

About that framing device: I've grown a bit weary of the old person telling the story of their life as they lay dying bit, so I was a little disappointed to see that used here. And the tacked-on feeling of Julia Ormond's character in those scenes didn't help. But I felt it was redeemed a bit by the twist used to bring that scene into the context of history -- others may feel this twist is either patronizing, exploitative, and/or predictable, but I felt it added a beautifully melancholy button (please forgive the pun) to this beautifully melancholy film.

'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' is, if not a masterpiece, certainly an epic success -- it takes on life and death, and family, and adventure, and love, and touches your mind if not your heart. Its awe-inspiring look and masterful performances make it an odds-on bet for Oscar nominations, if not wins. Fincher, Roth, Pitt and Henson could all be up for awards. The more interesting question -- at least to me -- is whether the film will find an audience. With Pitt starring and a simple yet wondrous premise, it certainly has a chance. But at nearly three hours, and bearing all the earmarks of a Fincher film -- most pushing it toward art over commerce -- I could see it having only modest success. In which case, it may need those Oscar nods, and accompanying publicity, to become a box office success.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

Next up: 'Gran Torino'

Movie Review: 'Milk'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

I grew up in the Bay Area in the 70's and 80's, so I'm well-aware of the legend of San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in American history. He was revered by many in the area, and had an Oscar-winning documentary made about him, so the details of his life are well-known. You might think that would affect my viewing experience of 'Milk', the biopic detailing his life and death, but you'd be wrong. Director Gus Vant Sant and first-time screenwriter Dustin Lance Black choose to spill the beans right off the bat, opening on the aftermath of Milk's murder. He even uses the original footage (famous in the Bay Area) of then Supervisor, now Senator Diane Feinstein announcing that both Milk and Mayor George Moscone had been shot and killed.

Knowing Harvey Milk's fate, Van Sant allows us to get to know him. Using the device of Milk (Sean Penn) recording an audio tape of essentially his memoir just prior to his death, he takes us back in time eight years to find how he got here. In New York City, Milk, then a restless insurance salesman, meets and seduces Scott Smith (James Franco) on his 40th birthday. In bed after sex, he tells Smith he feels he's never done anything he'll be proud of. We know then, changes are on the way, and the film doesn't make us wait around. Moving at a brisk pace, the film follows Smith and Milk to San Francisco, where they build a life. Van Sant and Black are able to cover a lot of ground here by keeping the scenes short, and the story moving forward.

The unquestioned strength of the movie is Penn, who embodies Milk with the same ease he plays characters closer to himself (even if he's a Gay Hater). That is to say, you buy him as gay. No, he's not going the "flamer" route, waving his arms around like a maniac, but he nails a certain affect that comes off as real. And it's not just for show -- there are a couple of kisses between Penn and Franco which are as realistically sexual as any you'll see on screen. Honestly, the chemistry between these characters is better than the typical Hollywood rom-com. A later doomed romance with Jack Lira (Diego Luna) is a little less believable, but the subplots work.

Emile Hirsh is outstanding as always as Cleve Jones, a friend and assistant to Milk, and the man from whom Black learned Milk's story. Josh Brolin rounds out a fantastic ensemble as Milk's nemesis, Supervisor Dan White. White is an Irish ex-cop and fireman whose politics and prejudice has him constantly at odds with Milk. Brolin is excellent in a limited role, as he's been in the entire string of juicy roles he's been in lately ('No Country for Old Men', 'American Gangster').

The film also benefits from a little luck: Much of the second act surrounds Milk's fight against Prop 6, which would've outlawed all gay people from being teachers in California. Because of the similarity to this fall's Prop 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California, the story seems more current while also nailing the look and feel of the San Francisco of the 70's. It was a progressive time and place, a hotbed of change, a place where issues were discussed on a political level for the first time. That's why it doesn't feel tacked on or convenient when Milk embraces a message of hope and change.

Van Sant is in rare form here. It may not be among his very best work, but he's following a much more commercial friendly style than usual, which suits the material. It's more in the vein of 'Good Will Hunting' than the work which first made him famous -- 'Drugstore Cowboys', 'My own Private Idaho'. Black is a former mormon, who was inspired to come out of the closet by Milk's story. As a relative newcomer in show business, Black approached a company in Hollywood who owned the rights to the Milk biography, 'The Mayor of Castro Street', an asked to adapt it. When he was turned down, he wrote his own version without anything from the book. He did research, which lead him to Jones, who gave Black all the information he needed to form his angle.

The film's payoff is expected because of the opening reveal, yet Van Sant manages to make it climactic, but not patronizing. A curious flashback is a somewhat regrettable choice, but it's a small nit to pick. One more: The efficiency employed to catch us up on Milk's story -- aided by the periodic scenettes of Milk recording his memoir on tape -- is useful, but has its drawbacks. While we quickly learn lots of information about Milk's ups and downs in politics, we don't have much time to find out who Harvey Milk the person is. Because of this, his story is not as involving as it might have been.

We see Milk's dysfunctional relationships with boyfriends, and we see his politics, but there's not much else. Maybe that was his life -- for a driven politician, it likely was -- but we didn't have to wait to meet him until he was 40. That was an artistic choice, and one which may have cost us some context. I'm not saying we needed to see a flashback from his childhood or anything as mainstream as that, but I would've liked to see what made him who he was. Or at least what he did when he wasn't crusading or having sex. But then, you only have so much time in a movie.

On the whole, the film captured an era, a movement, and a person -- a remarkable person -- and did it in a convincing and moving fashion. But I think it falls short of Oscar territory. Penn, however, could be looking at another nomination -- if his politics don't get in the way.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Milk':

RECOMMEND

Next up: Either 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' or 'Gran Torino', depending on how I feel.

TV Review: 'The Shield' -- Season Seven

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

(Before I begin, two quick notes: 1) As I mentioned in my last post, I have seen the lion-share of the top Oscar contenders coming out this month, and will have several reviews coming right up -- as well as a year-end 10 Best list. But first, I wanted to post my long-promised review of 'The Shield'. Look for the movie reviews to begin in the next day or two -- up first: 'Milk' and 'Benjamin Button'. 2) 'After Further Review...', my recap of the weekend's action in the NFL is up now over at Niners Nation -- you can check it out here.)

The ending of my favorite shows fills me with a strange and unique sensation -- one part breathless anticipation, one part dread. On the one hand, they're finales are long-awaited treats to be enjoyed. On the other, they're like old, dear friends who I'm watching march off to the electric chair, never to be seen again. I don't want them to go, but I can't wait to watch them leave.

That's how it's been with 'The Sopranos', 'The Wire', and a dozen or so great shows before them, and that's how it was with the long-awaited season finale of 'The Shield'. And having to wait nearly 15 months from the end of Season Six to the start of the final season did nothing to change that. Really, viewers have been waiting for closure since the end of Season Five, when Shane Vendrel (Walton Goggins) killed his friend and fellow Strike Team member Curtis "Lem" Lemansky (Kenny Johnson). Season Six was supposed to be the final season, but creator Shawn Ryan found Lem's death presented too much to deal with and still effectively pay off the entire series ("Lem's death sucked all the air out of the room" was a quote I read at the time).

Ryan asked the head honchos at F/X for one more season in order to allow the entire story to play out at a less rushed pace. His request was granted, so Season Six was cut a bit short at 10 episodes. It allowed for the ending to be set up, but never got to the heart of the issue on everyone's mind: What would happen to Vic Mackey (Michael Chiklis), the leader of the Strike Team, and our hero and our villain? He had found out Shane was guilty of his friend's murder, and wanted revenge, but was hamstrung by Shane's blackmail threats and his own fight to keep his badge.

To be frank, Season Six, while more compelling than just about anything else on TV -- the scenes of Shane dealing with his guilt and suicidal thoughts were especially good -- was probably the least entertaining. While long-time fans enjoyed seeing their favorite characters put through the meat-grinder, the episodes didn't have the same action-packed whiplash-inducing pace. Much of the time is spent searching for killer we (and Shane) know they'll never find. But Season Six did what it had to -- set the stage for the final 13 episodes.

Season Seven returns the show to the top of its game. The pace is back to what its lofty standards, and the tension's at an all-time high. Not only is Vic put through his usual paces -- running around town, usually behind the department's back, trying to play one side of the other and back again, looking for any angle. And this time, he faces even tougher challenges -- threats to his life, not to mention those of his wife and children, and his last remaining partner, Ronnie. He faces threats of blackmail and worse from his former best friend, Shane. Vic is also having to watch his back not only on the street, but in the squad house, where the suspicions of his captain and long-time nemesis, Claudette Wyms (C.C.H. Pounder) are forcing his actions further below radar, all while he is told he's just days from losing his badge for good.

When the final season starts, the audience knows Shane is guilty, and so do Vic and Ronnie. But by mid-season, so does the rest of the force, and that changes everything. Soon, Shane is on the run, and Vic must choose to either aid his enemy's escape, or risk his own exposure for any number of crimes upon Shane's capture -- the murder of fellow detective Terry Crowley and the robbery of the "Armenian Money Train" chief among them.

While this plays out, the supporting characters are given the usual subplots, but not paid off if any meaningful way. This is realistic, if not completely satisfying, so I understand and respect the choice. But it would've been nice to see a bit more of a climax for the dogged Holland "Dutch" Wagenbach (Jay Karnes), one of my favorite characters. He has a small payoff, as does Wyms, and also Steve Billings (David Marciano), but others -- officers Danni Sofer (Catherine Dent) and Julien Lowe (Michael Jace) just went on about their business. But such is life -- not everyone has dramatic life moments in concert with those around them.

The big payoffs are reserved for the Strike Team. I won't reveal any spoilers here, but as Shane's escape hits any number of snags along the way, it becomes clear things can't end well for him, which seems only fair. But what about Vic, our heroic villain? Let me just say this: We know he can't get away clean, and we probably don't want him to, but some men just can't die. Especially when he's willing to do anything to stay alive. If there's one thing we've learned about Mackey, it's that he's a survivor. It's more a question of how he lives with the things he's done to stay that way.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'The Shield':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

TV Review: 'Sons of Anarchy' -- Season One

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

It seems most of my reviews here start very much the same way: I talk about how the previews/ads for the show I'm discussing left me lukewarm, and I watched the show with low expectations, only to be happily surprised at how good it is. This dovetails with my experience watching movies all my life -- the lower the expectations, the higher the odds I'll enjoy the experience. But it's not an automatic thing -- I had low expectations for 'My Own Worst Enemy', and I hated the shit out of that.* The same has happened with movies ('Pearl Harbor' and 'Rush Hour 2' are just two of the many movies I knew would suck, but still saw in the theater). Still, it's happened enough that I came up with a rough formula:

(Movie Quality + Ending) / Expectation = Enjoyment

Because I'm aware how much my expectations affect my overall enjoyment, I always try to give a show more time to grow on me, show me one way or the other if my original feeling was well-founded. So, when I first began to enjoy watching 'Sons of Anarchy', which didn't happen until three or four episodes in, I decided not to write a review until I seen a little more. After all, it was a show about a motorcycle gang. That isn't my thing. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen anything featuring a motorcycle gang that I liked in the least. Maybe one is slipping my mind, but I'm pretty sure.

But saying 'SOA' is about a motorcycle gang is like saying 'Mad Men' is about advertising. The headline needs to be the creators -- 'Mad Men' was created by Matthew Weiner, former writer on 'The Sopranos', and 'SOA' was created by Kurt Sutter, former writer on 'The Shield'. Those are pedigrees which demand you at least give the show a fair chance, which is why I stuck with it after I was underwhelmed by the two-hour opening block of the show. But it slowly grew on me, and the final three episodes completely blew me away. In that three and a half hours of TV, the show jumped from an impressive newcomer to one of the best shows on TV. Simultaneously, Sutter rose from a solid TV writer to a a soon-to-be very rich man.

Sutter, who has a background in theater and acting (he appeared as "Margos" the foot-chopper in 'The Shield'), knows how to tell a story. And when a story is well-told, and filled with multi-dimensional characters, it doesn't much matter what world it takes place in. The themes are familiar and relatable: family, friendship, brotherhood, loyalty, financial burdens, etc.

And it helps when the acting is top notch, as it is here. It starts with Charlie Hunnam, who seemed like an odd choice to play the lead, Jackson "Jax" Teller. A British pretty boy as a grizzled biker didn't seem to ring true, but as the show progressed I bought him more and more as the hard-as-nails Jax. Sutter's real-life wife, Katey Segal, play Jax's domineering mother, Gemma to the hilt, and nails it. She's married to Jax's step-dad/gang boss, Clay Morrow, played by the larger (and gruffer) than life, Ron Perlman. Their roles are crucial to the show's success.

Several lesser character's also stand out -- Kim Coates, one of those guys who's been in everything, as Clay's right hand, "Tig"; Ryan Hurst as "Opie", an ex-con trying to juggle a wife and kids with his re-introduction to gang life; and William Lucking, as Opie's dad, one the old-timers in the gang, are just a few in a great ensemble cast full of solid performances. The show has also featured some great guest arcs from the likes of 'The Shield's' Jay Karnes and the always great Ally Walker -- as federal officers with very different motives.

The show follows Jax as he grows from becoming a father, and having to handle extra responsibilities in the gang and in his personal life. All while gaining inspiration from a manuscript left by his deceased father, the former head of the gang. He has to decide between two women in his life who both want him -- an old flame who broke his heart and the mother of his child. He pushes and pulls with Gemma and Clay, who each has the same conflict of interest -- each other. Their involvement with the law -- chiefly, having local police chief Wayne Unser ('Deadwood's' great Dayton Callie) in their pocket -- provides a compelling, and constantly evolving, storyline. The gang politics can bog down a bit, with all of their rivals essentially interchangeable, but there are enough interesting subplots (like a junior member's fledgling romance) to keep you involved at all times.

For awhile I didn't write this review because I wondered if the show would find a groove. When it did, I delayed the review because I thought it might not be able to keep it up. When it did that, I didn't know if it would be able to pay it all off in a satisfying way. It did, and I'm done doubting this show. Now, I'm just impatiently waiting for next season.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Sons of Anarchy':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

* Though I'll probably still be watching the remaining episodes before it's off the air if my wife has anything to say about it. SPOILER: She will.

TV Review: 'Worst Week'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

The multi-camera sit-com has been dying a long, slow death the past few years, its stale interiors and studio audience laugh track pushed to the side by popular single-camera sitcoms like ’Curb Your Enthusiasm’ and ’The Office’. The single-cam shows have more life (partly because they don’t revolve around a small number of sets), and feel a bit more real, with no audience prompting you when to laugh. They are also able to take their storylines into a wider range of places due to their ability to shoot anywhere, and employ more actors.

But now that the tradional multi-cam sit-coms have largely disappeared (CBS’s ’Two and a Half Men’ and ’How I Met Your Mother’ are two of the last still-popular dinosaurs), a new type of show has emerged -- a hyrbid. These are shows that are filmed without a studio audience, have no laugh track, and can filmed in any number of locations, yet still hold true to many of the old multi-cam-type cast and storylines.

One of these hybrids is ’Worst Week’, an adaptation of a British show (yes, another!), ’Worst Week of my Life’. This one was developed for American TV by Matt Tarses, a former writer for ’Sports Night’ and ’Scrubs’. It plays like an old-fashioned sit-com, with most of the action taking place in one location with a smaller cast of characters, but is shot with a single camera and has a new school life and energy.

The storylines stay within a very narrow framework -- how Sam Briggs continuously stumbles into trouble while staying with his soon-to-be in-laws, either through his own fault, or someone else’s -- but still manages to entertain. In this way, it’s very much like HBO’s animated sit-com ’The Life & Times of Tim’, only with a ton of physical comedy -- usually Sam taking some kind of pratfall or similar embarrassment. Like so:



This routine of poking our lead male character with pins like a voodoo doll for comedic value (or “Stillering”) can grow old quickly. What elevates this above the aveage sit-com, is the perfromances of Kyle Bornheimer and a terrific supporting cast. Bornheimer brings Sam an indefatigable good nature which steers him through even the most embarrassing and frustrating situations. No matter what happens to Sam, he manages to keep a smile on his face, and most of his “accidents” occur because he’s only too eager to help.

Sam’s polar opposite is his finacee’s father, the aptly-named Dick Clayton, a perptual grump, played perfectly by the veteran of both large and small screen, Kurtwood Smith. Smith is great at playing the curmudgeon, and he does again here with Dick, who clearly doesn’t feel Sam is good enough for his daughter, the beautiful and understanding Melanie (Erinn Hayes).

Melanie’s put-upon mother (played fantastically by Nancy Lenehan) also holds Sam at arm’s length, and Sam can’t seem to help from screwing up the Clayton’s house, cars, belongings, and just about anything else he gets close to. But, somehow, we don’t mind watching them all. On paper, we should root for this clutz, this glutton for punishment. Why? maybe the answer lies in the tagline for the show: “Good guy. Bad luck.”

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Worst Week':

RECOMMEND

TV Review: 'Summer Heights High'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

The previews I saw of HBO’s new sit-com, ’Summer Heights High’ didn’t interest me much. The gag of one actor playing multiple characters became exhausted sometime around the second “Nutty Professor” movie. But Chris Lilley, an award-winning writer/actor/comedian from Australia is more Peter Sellers than recent-era Eddie Murphy. That is to say, the laughs come more from the people's internal flaws than from their external ones. He has an amazing gift for characterization, the small habits and details -- dress, body english, expressions, vocabulary -- which make people feel real. This realness then becomes a wellspring from which the comedy can flow freely.

We laugh because the character quirks are at once ridicluous and familiar. We’ve all known the self-righteous know-it-all who feels the need to leave helpful, instructive notes around the breakroom, or the kid with no attention span or discline whatsoever, or the plastic, self-involved bitch. Lilley brings those three people to life in this mockumentary about a public high school in Australia and exposes all their flaws -- as well as the acidic atmosphere at many public schools -- for maximum comedic effect.

The fact that you can buy the 33-year-old Lilley as a teenage girl tells you how far he gets into character. That character is Ja’mie King, a holdover from Lilley’s previous show in America, ’The Nominees’, which aired on IFC and was based on his award-winning show in Australia, 'We Can Be Heroes: Finding Australian of the Year'. Ja’mie is a bitchy and spoiled exchange student from a private school who insults everyone at the public school she meets whether she means it or not, and doesn’t hesitate to tell her new friends she pities them for their meager surroundings:



She’s just one of the three characters Lilley inhabits -- another is “Mr. G”, a cutting and egomaniacal drama teacher at the school:



The last is Jonah Takalua, a Pacific Islander who probably resembles the most immature, disruptive kid you knew in high school -- as entertaining as they are annoying:



Each of the characters are so well-portrayed, you're disappointed when the POV switches away from, only to be excited to see what the next one is up to. They're like car accidents you simply can't look away from, and the interaction between them and their peers is so awkward you almost can't stand it. In that way, it reminds one of 'The Office', or that other HBO sit-com with the lead you love to hate, 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'.

Following the lead of those shows is a good place to start, but it's not enough. You still need to bring your unique flavor to the genre to make it work, and Lilley clearly has plenty of that to spare. I have a feeling we're only just beginning to get a taste.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Summer Heights High':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

UPDATE

Let's stop and re-evaluate a bit, shall we? Some things have changed, and when that happens, it's nice to take stock of things. Here's a little Q & A to get you caught up.

Q: So, what's changed?

A: Well, for starters, I've just agreed to turn that weekly post at Niners Nation I wrote about earlier into a bi-weekly post. Starting this week, I'll have one post on Friday mornings previewing the weekend's games in the NFL, and another on Monday morning reviewing the weekend action. I'm excited about this opportunity to reach a larger audience, but it will of course mean I have to post a little less over here.

Q: What does that mean for this site?

A: Hopefully, not much. Of course, since both my Monday and Friday football columns will be running elsewhere, they won't be here -- that means no more "For Who? For What?" or "Theoretical Gambling" -- but I will still write short posts that day to at least link to those posts. I'm also going to still try to post once a weekday over here, it's just unlikely that those posts will include my thoughts on sports -- at least not until after football season. I may have the occasional post about a baseball acquisition (today, the Giants signed former Reds reliever Jeremy Affeldt, and I might write something about that shortly, for instance), or random rant about something which doesn't fit into my football pieces, but most of what you'll find here will be related to my personal life, the entertainment world, or both.

Q: Do you have a preview of what exactly is to come for this site?

A: I'm glad you asked that, made-up person. As soon as I'm done answering this question, I'm going to do a quick update on the TV shows I've reviewed up to this point, and in the coming weeks I plan to see several Oscar bait movies to review. I'll also be turning my attention to established TV shows. Up until this point, I've only been reviewing old shows, but I want to review the latest seasons of some of my favorite shows to take a look at how they rate against their previous work.

TV UPDATE

Before I get to updating my reviews, I want to update my Top 10 Shows On TV list, even though I just wrote it last week. After catching up on the last couple episodes of 'Dexter', I need to ammend those rankings to raise it up at least one slot, and maybe more. Right no, they are peaking, with the current storyline one of its most compelling. I'm shocked to be saying this, but Jimmy Smits is the best thing that's ever happened to that show.

In TV, things can also change quickly. When you review a movie, you don't have to worry that the movie might change after your review, turning you into a liar. TV shows, on the other hand, can start off shakily, then turn it around and become very good with a few key changes. Other shows can have a terrific pilot and back it up with a couple good shows before completely crapping the bed. Therefore, I thought it would be a good idea to go back and revisit the TV reviews I've done so far, which can all be found here.

LIFE ON MARS: This was very recent, and I haven't seen another episode, so my CONSIDER grade still stands.

ELEVENTH HOUR: I've seen a couple more episodes of this, but not much has changed. Still CONSIDER.

MY OWN WORST ENEMY: After giving it a PASS, I've seen one more episode (against my will), and there's been no change. I wouldn't hold my breath on it either -- it's been cancelled by NBC.

THE LIFE & TIMES OF TIM: I gave this a HIGHLY RECOMMEND, but while the show is still pretty good, it's become a bit spottier. Because of this recent inconsistency, I'm lowering my grade slightly to RECOMMEND.

FRINGE: Things are looking up a bit for 'Fringe' recently, as the last few episodes have shown it to be finding its own voice a little better. As with a lot of shows, the increased airtime has allowed the characters to become more three-dimensional, and thus the interplay between them is more compelling. They've also had some really cool bits on fringe science of late. Because of this improvement, I'm going to bump by original CONSIDER grade up to RECOMMEND territory.

TRUE BLOOD: Since I gave 'True Blood' a RECOMMEND grade, the show has stalled out a bit. I still like it, but I can see how somehow might say the characters are stagnating a bit as they run over familiar territory. I was prepared to drop their current grade until I saw the last episode, which I thought was better than the last few. I'm going to keep the original grade for now.

THE MENTALIST: The steadiest show on this list. You could argue that's because it's a predictable CBS procedural, and that might have some truth to it, but I like it, so I'll praise its consistency. Still RECOMMEND.