Zack and Miri Make a Porno *
Kevin Smith, 2008
US
@ Pacific Place

Delightful as expected. Similarities to Be Kind Rewind, though on a smaller, much smuttier scale. It felt disjointed, but not in an unpleasant way.

Incidentally, the guy who wanders in drunk during one of the shoots, Tyler Labine, is part of the cast of A Good Old Fashioned Orgy, along with David Koechner, Martin Starr, Will Forte, Jason Sudeikis, and Don Johnson. I'm trying to envision it, but the mind boggles.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic | Publicity

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

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist *
Peter Sollett, 2008
US
@ Regal Meridian

Much gayer and more Jewish than I expected. Michael Cera's blank acting works really well particularly during the scene in which he finally dumps his ex. The sound was not loud enough, so the music lost some impact. Interesting to see Bujalski's friends Bishop Allen in a bigger production. More interesting to see a guy I worked with for a while in Manhattan playing the Asian guy at the deli. I knew he did that type of work, but he hadn't been in a movie this big for about twelve years now, according to iMDB. The physical, gross-out humor contrasts nicely with the mild-mannered leads. Maybe not great, but certainly interesting here and there.

See also: IMDb

A Girl Cut in Two *
Claude Chabrol, 2008
France
@ Varsity Theater

Cold and remote. Almost too much so to have much affect.

See also: IMDb

Mister Foe *
David Mackenzie, 2008
UK
@ Landmark Metro

A nice film. I'd expected the music to be great, but it was good. It's striking how many times we see the same two rooftop shots of Glasgow.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic

Burn After Reading *
Joel & Ethan Coen, 2008
US
@ Regal Meridian

The best parallel I can find from their work is actually O Brother, Where Art Thou?, especially given George Clooney's character. It's less fanciful on all levels, but the characters are about as unintelligent and confounded.

Brad Pitt alone is worth the price of admission.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic

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

Tropic Thunder *
Ben Stiller, 2008
US
@ Regal Meridian

See also: IMDb

The Rocker *
Peter Cattaneo, 2008
US
@ Regal Meridian

Charming and well-executed. What's really surprising is how infrequently anything gets overplayed. The three kids, for example, are all soft-spoken, and Jeff Garlin's father figure spends most of his screen time silently admiring his "rock star" brother-in-law. The confrontations are all basically polite, and the love interests tame. This is really admirable given that teenage fans of High School Musical and Hannah Montana (featuring some of the most outrageous overacting on televison) are probably at least one target demographic here.

I've been waiting for Jason Sudeikis to do something great onscreen for a little while now, particularly after his terrific stint on 30 Rock, and he doesn't disappoint. To be honest, Rainn Wilson might be the weakest link here. I think the supporting cast is all ready to play off of him, but he just doesn't provide enough charisma, particularly noticeable early on. Jack Black would be the obvious surrogate, given School of Rock, but there are probably others as well.

Two Ohio-specific notes: Wilson's character manages to mispronounce "Akron" fairly early in the movie, and he also waxes nostalgic about seeing metal bands at the Q back in his heyday (the mid-80's), but that arena didn't begin construction (as Gund Arena) until the early 1990's. Then again, the film was shot in Toronto, so regional specificity is something of a moot point anyway.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic

Vicky Cristina Barcelona *
Woody Allen, 2008
Spain/US
@ Guild 45th

Beautiful use of natural light. Everyone looks uncannily beautiful all the time. I find something ghostly about Allen's shooting style, at least in the recent films I've seen. Every time I try to articulate it more fully, though, I can't quite. Something about the way he follows the actors with his camera, kind of like how Altman's floating zoom makes the viewer feel like a spirit haunting the world of the movie. It has to do with the way he handles extras as well, though, because somehow the main action of the movie always feels detached from the surroundings, as if the city he's shooting in doesn't really exist.

The interweaving, dysfunctional relationships are trademark stuff, but somehow they don't feel consequential like they did for me in Hannah and Her Sisters or Crimes and Misdemeanors. And because of the rapid pace due to the copious voiceover narration, or really voiceover exposition, the movie feels long even under 100 minutes. Maybe it's just that this comes up against the existential dread and relatively tight plotting of Match Point and Cassandra's Dream. (I missed Scoop.)

See also: IMDb | Metacritic

Pineapple Express ***
David Gordon Green, 2008
US
@ Pacific Place

Fantastic. Basically everything I'd hoped for, and a lot more as well. I think this is kind of how I wanted the violence in Reservoir Dogs to feel, whereas I was just repulsed by the ear mutilation in that movie. I guess this kind of fits with some of the cop bits in Superbad, and the action feels like a natural extension of the cinematic world we're in from the beginning. This also does exactly what I'd hoped Hot Fuzz would do, but that movie was satisfied with being clever rather than terrific. Pretty sure you could lop off the opening segment with absolutely no ill effects.

It seems certain that there are a whole lot more tossed off references to action films and others than IMDb's "Movie Connections" page currently lists, particularly with the Asian gang members near the end.

And there's the romp in the woods, which is notable both for the beautiful location and the goofy counterpoint to all the gunshots, bodyblows, and explosions to come after.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic | Ed Howard review

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

Step Brothers *
Adam McKay, 2008
US
@ Pacific Place

Eh. There was plenty to laugh at, but generally the situations were funnier than the execution. The idea of 40-year-olds getting bullied by kids is hilarious, but out of proportion to what we actually experience. In Talladega Nights, Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly were funny, and then Sacha Baron Cohen stepped in to set things off. Here there's no third party who's nearly as funny.

So obviously I don't have much problem with critics who don't find the film as funny as it could be. I do think it's a bit weird to take exception to the obscenity, though. As with In Search of a Midnight Kiss (and Kevin Smith's movies), those tend to be the most reliable bits. Is it a generational thing?

It also doesn't seem very germane to this or any one comedy in particular to lament the lack of complex female characters. Take a look at this list of highest-grossing American comedies. They're almost entirely centered around males with serious and/or sexy (ie not terribly interesting) female foils. Not much different for most successful romantic comedies that come to mind, either. (And serious movies are frequently no better at respecting their actresses.) I understand the need to repeat complaints that have not been addressed for several decades now, but it also strikes me as a bit tiresome at this point. Eventually it's got to be time for a change of strategy for feminist critics or simply any segment of the population who gets tired of seeing the same guys starring in comedies all the time. Perhaps advocacy of the few Hollywood films that do feature excellent female leads, or foreign and/or older movies that could be remade. Just pointing out that a particular movie doesn't feature complex females doesn't seem to be doing anyone any good.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic

In Search of a Midnight Kiss ***
Alex Holdridge, 2008
US
Preview @ SIFF Cinema

Thrilling. At times Scoot McNairy reminded me of Jason Lee somewhere between Mallrats and Chasing Amy both in terms of scenario and delivery of weirdly obscene lines at inconvenient times. Worth seeing for so many reasons, not least of which is the recasting of downtown Los Angeles as a picturesque, resolutely urban(e) place. Maybe I haven't seen enough of the right indie romantic comedies, but Sara Simmonds' dominating performance over the first two thirds or so seemed much more like an updated screwball heroine than anything contemporary. Every once in a while an awkward moment showed through in the placement of actors, or line deliveries, but I think that says a lot about Holdridge's ambition, in a good way.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic

Alexandra ***
Alexander Sokurov, 2008
Russia
@ Varsity Theater

Again with the uncomfortably low sound at the Varsity. The voices seemed almost disembodied here, although the low levels of light played a part as well. I found it hard to get into the rhythm of the film at first, but once I did it felt very right. The images are indelible.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic

The Last Mistress ***
Catherine Breillat, 2008
France
@ Guild 45th Theater

Ms. Breillat’s explorations of desire and pleasure are so far from the antiseptic world of most screen depictions as to seem far out. In truth she’s just fearless, determined to show what others keep hidden — the good, the bad, the tumescent, the fluid — so she can keep puzzling through her ideas. “The Last Mistress” isn’t as graphic as some of her other films, notably “Romance,” which features full-frontal and then some. The sex in this film is far from explicit, though it features geometric formations that may be better suited for Kama Sutra students, or at least the limber. What’s explicit here is ravenous passion and the depiction of desire as a creating, destroying force that invades the very flesh. It’s terribly French.

It’s also gloriously unpredictable, even if the ways in which Ms. Breillat frames and puts together scenes tend to be less than surprising. A stubborn individualist, she is also a generally unremarkable, even on occasion awkward stylist, though one sensitive to color. You gasp at her ideas and words, not her setups and camera moves. Set amid the rarefied realm of the French aristocracy — Louis-Philippe, the last king to rule France, sits on the throne — the film has many of the trappings of a conventional costume drama, from the rustling gowns to the glowing candelabra. Everything from the costumes to the cinematography works to advance the story. Everything, that is, except La Vellini, who, like Goya’s Maja, rocks her world by the public spectacle of her desire.

Like all the unruly women who populate Ms. Breillat’s films, La Vellini rubs hard against the grain. She’s the fly in the ointment, the stick in the eye, and it’s her howls, her spit and her fury that keep everything off kilter, disturbing the peace, its keepers and the narrative flow. Ms. Breillat reserves her most adoring close-ups for Mr. Aattou, a delicate beauty with feminine pillowy lips. (She loves her boys.) But she never denies Ms. Argento, who hurtles into her scenes, at times literally, gobbling up a lot of space. She’s playing a woman whom others deride as a creature — as if she were a beast. In truth, La Vellini is a woman of pleasure, and Ms. Breillat makes certain her cup runneth over, furiously.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic | Manohla Dargis review

Yella *
Christian Petzold, 2008
Germany
@ The Grand Illusion

It might be interesting to watch again just to check for hints that Yella is actually dreaming/dead/watching alternate versions of her life flash before her eyes. There were certainly some obvious clues but probably more subtle ones as well.

Geography is important in the movie and not made particularly clear for non-German viewers. Yella's journey is essentially from the former East to the former West, from a pretty but still depressed region to a city schooled in capitalist economics, with the River Elbe as a kind of border between the two. Thus, pic is also a portrait of an easterner finding her vocation but losing her soul.

Hadn't caught this bit (mentioned in Variety) very well.

See also: IMDb | Variety review

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

Up the Yangtze *
Yung Chang, 2008
Canada/China
@ Varsity Theater

The basic details of life depicted here are all impressive but the filmmaking is not so much. Maybe I'd feel differently a second time around, but the tone is kind of glib when focusing on the "characters," kind of like it's a reality show based around families and their children trying to win a decent life above the future level of the river. We get no facts beyond that of the ever-present 175m signs. It's weird that I've read so few comparisons to Still Life which contrasts this film in so many intresting ways.

See also: IMDb | Metacritic