The Changeling **
Clint Eastwood, 2008
US
@ Majestic Bay

I'd never been to the Majestic Bay before, and the screen was impressively large and close to the stadium seating.

I was reminded of how sad it is that Amy Ryan's stint on The Office looks to not be very long. I'm all for comedy writers doing comedy acting, but she was just so obviously better than everyone else that it was kind of ridiculous. I'd say Ed Helms is back to being my favorite, though I suppose that's just because Steve Carell is too obvious to really think about much.

How awesome is Geoffrey Pierson in this movie. So awesome, in fact, that during the trial(s) section, I started imagining this scenario as an allegory of some future reckoning for the current members of the executive branch of federal gov't rather than the LAPD in the 20's. You know, Christine Collins as the US population, her son Walter as "the American dream," "freedom," whatever you might want to call what is generally believed to be good and/or exemplary about the nation, and the protesters milling about the concerned citizens of the world. I don't even know how I really feel about the movie or these scenes in particular because what it spawned in my head was so powerful that I couldn't really pay attention to the action onscreen.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic | A.O. Scott review

Rachel Getting Married **
Jonathan Demme, 2008
US
@ Egyptian Theater

Margot at the Wedding felt to me like great black comedy, whereas this was just black for long stretches, although perfectly leavened by key scenes. The dishwasher bit was my favorite, better even than anything at the wedding. I've read complaints about the handheld camera work, and I don't always appreciate that style, but here it works very well to bring us closer to the characters and, I think, maintain an element of surprise. The characters are so bitter and the tone so wrenching that the reconciliation didn't feel rote here like it usually does.

See also: IMDb

My Own Private Idaho **
Gus Van Sant, 1991
US
@ SIFF Cinema

Very good. Gus Van Sant is probably right up there with Richard Linklater for me in terms of working American directors. Doesn't hurt that he works so frequently in the Northwest. Milk will be a bit of a departure in that it's not about a young man who is either a danger to himself or those around him, as has been the case with ten of Van Sant's twelve features. The two exceptions are Even Cowgirls Get the Blues and To Die For, neither of which I have yet seen.
See also: IMDb

Hamlet 2 **
Andrew Fleming, 2008
US
@ Pacific Place

This film presents, I think, a perfect approach to working with a moribund genre. As opposed to the series of spoofs ending in ... Movie, you know, scary, superhero, etc. Most brilliantly, Steve Coogan's idiot drama teacher lists off inspirational teacher stories constantly, making clear that he wastes no critical thinking on his appreciation of anything that comes from Hollywood, cleverly taking the place of actual references included over the course of the plot, which in this post-Simpsons & Family Guy world I'd be happy to never witness again.

Initially I agreed with Kenneth Turan: "It's uneven, but the hits are so dead-on that the misses don't seem to matter." But then I noticed that the characters are all remarkably consistent. That is, we may need to take a little while to adjust to these characters before we can laugh at them well. Steve Coogan plays a character who is simultaneously (as above) idiotic, unaware, super-sensitive, kind, delusional, self-loathing and self-deprecating but perhaps not quite enough, and even remarkably unruffled and steady. It's a lot to wrap your head around after, say, too many Will Ferrell comedies.

In terms of spectacle, the last 20 minutes or so are the most absorbing of any I've seen in a long time. In terms of voices, Steve Coogan's impossibly rich, heavily British (think Patrick Stewart or Ian McKellen) narration at the beginning is in hilarious contrast to his wheedling American (Canadian?) accent. Critics have complimented it, but there is something about his R's that just doesn't feel quite right to me, like he modeled his dialogue on old Hollywood movies or something, I don't know. In terms of genre, it meshes the aforementioned inspirational teacher drama with the 40-is-the-new-toddler immature male comedy. It plays with convention, but in a richer fashion than the last Harold & Kumar movie. A Sundance movie that puts its quirkiness to fantastic, demented use instead of blowing it on a cheap, run-of-the-mill indie dramedy.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic | Kenneth Turan review

Medium Cool **
Haskell Wexler, 1969
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

Radical. Mentions Contempt directly and mimics Godard a bit here and there. Compare/contrast the images of the dirty kids swarming the news vehicle and the hippie/cop battle.

See also: IMDb | Roger Ebert review

Bound for Glory **
Hal Ashby, 1976
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

This was almost certainly the worst projection I've ever witnessed at NW Film Forum. The fact that this seems outrageous merely goes to show that generally the projection is very good, especially for a non-profit cinematheque.

I made a few possibly useful connections during the film. Last December I was appalled by Ann Powers' suggestion that there is a connection between a supposed decrease in political activism and the omnipresent iPod. Then tonight as I was stirred by Hal Ashby and David Carradine's depiction of Woody Guthrie's powerful humanitarian urges in the face of oppression both soft and very hard, I recalled a poster in the MVS house featuring Woody Guthrie's statement on songwriting. (It starts "I hate a song that makes...") and my initial reaction to it, which was that it sounds kind of manipulative and pandering. Against the backdrop of this film, though, it sounds fiercely determined and utterly admirable.

Of course I was reminded of David Foster Wallace's essay, "E Unibus Pluram," which you can probably find somewhere online but I can't right now. Generally it's about how television and the pop culture associated with it has made us all into irony-loving cynics who refuse to appear to be surprised at anything. Mostly he's trying to figure out a way to move forward in a culture that won't accept anything new, because that would require genuine intention and effort, which doesn't sound appropriate any longer. Parts of it are outdated, and it's true in some senses, not in others, but on the whole I think it shows precisely why I can't understand what Woody Guthrie is saying on that poster, that he's speaking in a mode that now sounds outlandish for a popular musician. The question is whether forthright exploration of important social issues is simply impossible via that route, or if perhaps there are other, more subtle but semantically accurate ways of broaching the same topics.

So, if you or someone you know figures out a way to couch advocacy of communitarian/socialist/humanist values in generationally and culturally appropriate terminology, let me know. I'm guessing that might be more useful than telling people not to listen to their iPods.

See also: IMDb

The Dark Knight **
Christopher Nolan, 2008
US
@ Pacific Place

While there is nothing wrong with a 155-minute film (or a 455-minute film, for that matter), every one ought to be as long as it needs to be, and thus length seems a valid criticism here. Perhaps what both causes some people to complain about the runtime and others to shout "torture porn!" is the single fact that without a traditional narrative arc and conclusion the film seems to run well past what the logical conclusion of the most of what we discover in the first hour or so, into another story entirely. Thus every hostage scene in that second half feels gratuitous, but largely because the film feels distended in general. I eagerly await David Bordwell or Kristin Thompson's commentary on the dramatic structure, if one is forthcoming.

What disturbs me about this movie, or perhaps just leaves me cold, are the implications of the fact that the Joker is the only interesting thing here. He's brilliant, creative, and disarming, but we're supposed to root for the guy with high-tech firepower and no emotional range. That, rather than the bodycount or Sisyphean nature of Batman's crimefighting, seems to me the truly dark message communicated to the audience. Not that this calls to mind any direct political or social parallels, but it does strike me as unpleasant and maybe oddly Puritanical. It seems to me that dark and dull are easily confused when lots of explosions are occurring at the same time.

As the film is so long with relatively little important dialogue, I had a lot of time to ponder the interest in superheroes in general. They seem most vital when we have detached from society. That is, when we can't or won't solve our problems on a human scale by being humane to those around us, maybe we fantasize about superhuman figures or weaponry to patrol the streets and keep us safe. Backward, and kind of sad. Contrast this with the western, in which the hero was frequently the man imposing law and order (perhaps for the first time) on a frontier community. The superhero, on the other hand, supersedes the law and social conventions by instituting his own vigilante justice. Sort of like marshall law vs. martial law.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic | Hammer to Nail

Shampoo **
Hal Ashby, 1975
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

Warren Beatty is awesomely vacant here. He's so completely blank and baffled all the time, even though he's essentially the leading man. Wealth is once again a factor here, since Beatty's character is eventually abandoned because he's not yet a breadwinner. Soundtrack was great.

See also: IMDb

Last Year at Marienbad **
Alain Resnais, 1961
France/Germany
@ SIFF Cinema

This was the first time I've dozed off during a movie in a very long while. I suspect I didn't miss much though. It's all about repeating patterns, the same thing occurring over and over, but hoping eventually for a different outcome. Perhaps like the way in which memories mutate as you recall them over time. Ought to see this again several times.

See also: IMDb | TCMDb

Monsieur Verdoux **
Charles Chaplin, 1947
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

I was just reading last night that the United States was one of the first nations to recognize Franco's Spain after World War II. Except in times of dire economic crisis, we're pretty happy to sacrifice pretty much any other values in the name of capitalism. 1947 must have been a particularly bad time to release this, then.

Some people seem to have confused "greatest American comedy" and "funniest American movie" in contemporary discussions of this picture's historical status. I have no idea how you could support the second, but the first might not be out of the question. If by greatest you mean best use of the tools of film comedy to lambast libertarian greed and support of monstrous policies to pay for our way of life, then this is certainly up there. I found it to be intermittently funny, although some bits were very good, particularly the scene in the boat.

Though I've noticed it at other screenings as well, here I felt particularly sheepish when I discovered that I would laugh most before humorous events took place on screen, largely finished by the time they happened, simply because Chaplin's comedy relies on the big delivery of some mistake or pratfall you can predict, rather than a true element of surprise. In other words, I might start laughing at the point where it becomes obvious to the audience that Monsieur Verdoux is going to believe he's drunk the poisoned wine, at the moment his companion switches the glasses, rather the moment when he finally gets the mortally terrified look on his face. Not sure if it's that I undervalue the execution and overvalue the construction/set-up of the scene, or if anticipation really is more than half the fun.

See also: IMDb | TCMDb

Harold & Maude **
Hal Ashby, 1971
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

Vivian Pickles' overbearing mother is probably my favorite thing here, although Maude's notoriously shaped statue/sculpture in the middle of her house is right up there. In some ways, particularly the opening scene, this reminded me of The Ruling Class, made around the same time in Britain, but this is certainly a lighter film. The uncle appears to be a castoff from Dr. Strangelove. It was interesting to watch this keeping Rushmore in mind, cf. Jason Schwartzman's comments on Bud Cort as Harold in GOOD Magazine.

See also: IMDb | Piece on Hal Ashby

Wall-E **
Andrew Stanton, 2008
US
@ Cinerama

It's weird the way critics fall all over themselves rushing to praise Pixar pictures, like no one else has ever seen them and they must alone champion the cause. Except that everyone is doing the same thing, so...

There's plenty to praise here, especially on the technical side. The attention to visual detail is astonishing, especially the dusty, sun-scorched opening. Much of the time on the ship feels like a re-tread of parts of Monsters, Inc. but still.

Another point that confuses me is the one where people try to use the presence of some vague, "green" message to give the film greater significance. It's pretty much post-apocalyptic boilerplate ("We filled the Earth with trash, and now we have to leave!") without any direct connection to currently relevant problems, and oddly unconcerned about the ability of the completely disconnected and puerile new inhabitants to actually confront the planet as it is, ie still a total junkheap, just sorted into piles. Odd that the film both lampoons the weak laziness of humankind and at the same time assumes a limitless reserve of pluck and perseverance.

I suspect none of this would matter if people didn't speak of the film in such reverential tones. The kind of creepy guy sitting behind me sounded exactly like the type of Obama partisan who is largely trying to make himself look good by associating with a fairly bland, broadly interpretable, empty brand with a shiny surface and real big bandwagon trailing behind. At least with politics you've got the excuse that with so little to get truly excited about, a possibly genuine opportnunity becomes unbearably exciting. Is that the case if you limit yourself to new Hollywood releases these days?

Perhaps what disturbs me most about the movie (and again, this is based on the suspicion that a lot people are taking this movie extremely seriously) is the way robots are located at the emotional center of the film. You're allowed zero distance from the bizarre and manipulative "love" story between Wall-E* and Eve. By using non-human characters with no place in any sort of relational scheme that could possibly exist, our reaction is based almost entirely on the score and pretty much none at all on the movie making any kind of sense. Most animated films featuring animals are predicated on the notion that what were viewing is pretty much a version of human culture, but with robots, it's as if we're expected to believe that out of nowhere love spawns in the circuitry. I suppose what I'm really trying to get at here is that it seems a bit cheap to endow pretty much indestructible, immortal machines with the emotions of barely pubescent 12-year olds. Not wrong, exactly, or unclever, but perhaps suggestive of a depth or complexity that is very much not there. The fact that the film is at-times awe-inspiring is maybe the only reason to get worked up about any of this.

A selection of terms from Metacritic's page: "honest," "substantial," "high plane of aspiration," "the best American film of the year to date," "Chaplinesque," "enduring classic," "heartfelt"

*The most brilliant piece of cinematic merchandising ever? The logo of the film is facing us directly from the front of the titular robot for the entire movie.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic

Reprise **
Joachim Trier, 2008
Norway
@ Varsity Theater

I think the sound was turned down on this, although it was a quiet film for the most part anyway. A bit hard to grasp, since the characters don't really develop as we might expect, but that's pretty clearly signalled by the false plotlines introduced, one at the beginning and another near the end. I recall some of the interior scenes as b&w given the bleached color and minimalist monochrome furnishings. Ought to see this again, and just might if it plays long enough.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic

Frownland **
Ronald Bronstein, 2007
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

From when I saw this last September:

Keith (Dore Mann) is obviously something of a caricature, but his misadventures still resonate. He lives somewhere around Greenwich Village or maybe the Lower East Side and sells coupons door to door in Staten Island. He has a ferocious stuttering problem and minimal social skills. His roommate is a complete and total jerk. The film ends on a sour note, but no more sour than the constant tenor of the rest of the picture.

See also: Official website

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind **
Hayao Miyazaki, 1984
Japan
@ Northwest Film Forum

This was sort of weirdly silent (except for voices) near the beginning, though as the action picked up that got less noticeable. It seemed like the characters explained everything really explicitly, but maybe that's necessary in a kid's fantasy movie. It is kind of a complex story. Some of the images are haunting/thrilling, if not as technically impressive as the later stuff. Star Wars influence on a lot of the anachronistic design, maybe?

See also: IMDb

Kung Fu Panda **
Mark Osborne/John Stevenson, 2008
US
@ Regal Meridian w/ Holly

This was great. Holly and I saw it mainly because it fit the free tickets I had, but it's terrifically colorful and a lot of fun. The action was smooth and kinetic and just kept going and going. Obviously it makes a lot of sense, but still nice to hear Seth Rogen getting some voice work. I was a bit disappointed that he (and the rest of the supporting cast) had such minor roles, but solid nonetheless. The 2-D opening was possibly even better, very reminiscent of Samurai Jack.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic

La France **
Serge Bozon, 2008
France
@ Pacific Place

Mysterious and explained just the right amount, which is basically none. I found myself puzzling over the suggestion that Camille's search for her husband was equivalent to a search for death. It's possible that I wouldn't be able to get some things with my pretty casual knowledge of French history.

IMDb

Baghead **
Duplass Bros., 2008
US
@ Egyptian Theater

Is Greta Gerwig always going to be this good? __'s chubby brother suggests a kind of smarter, more truly endearing Jon Lovitz, and I think he could be great in big-budget movies. That is, if character actors were really valued and made use of these days. I'm also real excited about Dodecadecathlon.

See also: IMDb

Christopher Columbus: The Enigma **
Manoel de Oliveira, 2008
Portugal
@ SIFF Cinema

I still don't really know why this worked so well for me, but it hit the spot. Almost like something you might catch late at night on PBS, at once baffling and clear in its intentions. Maybe it was just the location photography around Portugal that got me excited.

See also: IMDb

Sparrow **
Johnnie To, 2008
Hong Kong
@ Uptown Cinema

Terminally slight, but oh-so-stylish. Simon Yam almost always has the exact same expression on his face, but he wears it so well. The umbrella sequence almost feel a bit overdramatic, but the city scenes all had such a jaunty flair that it's impossible to come away frowning.

See also: IMDb