"When the truth is found to be lies, and all the joy within you dies..." A SERIOUS MAN REVIEW

A Serious Man-2009-Joel and Ethan Coen

.................

"But I didn't do anything!" We hear Larry Gopnick scream as mishap after mishap occurs. He is certainly right, he didn't do anything. These words are uttered with perfect comic timing as well as with a tragic overtone. And in this phrase we find the Coen's, at their best, pushing forward the humor and tragedy simultaneously. Something Woody Allen often attempts to do, even explicitly in a film made in 2005 called Melinda and Melinda. Where Allen announces what he is doing in the beginning and allows for two separate stories to unfold, one a comedy, the other a drama. The problem is, because of its structure, the film is disjointed and messy. A Serious Man, and many of the Coen's previous efforts, however, are quite the opposite, because they manage to mix the humor and pain perfectly.

In A Serious Man, Larry Gopnick is a Job character. It has been said in basically everything written about it, and is blatantly obvious. He is a good man. He does everything by the book. But yet he is still punished. And he doesn't understand why his wife is leaving him, the job he wanted he may not get, he may be sick, his kids are morons, etc.

All in all, A Serious Man is a very strong outing showing obvious, existential flare. Is there a God? If so, is He listening? Does he enjoy the pain of his creation like a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants? I think the strength in the Coens and this film in particular is their ability to bring you into this situation, not really offer any solution, but still leave you satisfied by film's end. Not satisfied in the sense that every character got what they wanted, or that there was a happy ending. But to go anywhere else than where A Serious Man leads us in the end, would go against the rest of the movie.


Perhaps there are no answers. Or perhaps, we all make our own. Maybe, in the end, it's best to live our lives, no matter how perplexed we become, ultimately, we will never be satisfied with any answers, because they only ever lead to more questions. But does this mean we shouldn't ask questions? In a circle we go.

At times, the Joel and Ethan seem to get so wrapped up in this characters misery and the needs to have him asking these questions, that as an audience member, it becomes tiresome. There are parallels to Larry and Sy Ableman, his neighbor whom his wife decides to leave him for. There is a running parallel between Larry and his son, Danny. And these things keep the mind running and we get answers and then ten more questions arise. It's frustrating, but in a good way.

In this way, the film is more like Barton Fink than any previous Coen film. In both, the lead character face hell in different ways. It seems Larry's hell is a rural suburb, while Barton's is Hollywood. They both are rather innocent men who are punished for doing "nothing". But drawing the comparison to Barton Fink, brings us to a film Fink takes a lot from and that's David Lynch's Eraserhead. A very polarizing, odd film that does little to answer the questions it raises. The similarities lie in the main characters dilemmas, and how they react to them. All of them quietly accepting their fate while asking questions constantly. If you look at the three leads, they have a similar look, especially in the hair.


Anyway, A Serious Man is a claustrophobic, messy yet to the point existential study of the question; why do we suffer? And while the Coen's do little to offer an answer, I found that, to me, the film's meaning is derived solely in two points. A story told by a rabbi and the ending, where we find out th...............................................

"I took my lucky break and I broke it in two..." WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

Where The Wild Things Are-2009-Spike Jonze

.................................

Without pandering to any sort of audience, Maurice Sendak wrote a beautifully transcendent children's book about imagination, loneliness, and love. He did so in a mere 10 sentences, with some splendid illustration, and for 46 years it has been captivating children and adults alike.

In the early 90's, Spike Jonze started directing short films and music videos, eventually gaining notoriety for his imaginatively creative narratives in such short pieces of filmmaking. His work with The Beastie Boys, Weezer, and Fatboy Slim comprise some of the best music videos made during the last decade of the 20th century. In 1999, he made his feature film debut with a dark, cynical comedy called Being John Malkovich, written by the illustrious Charlie Kaufman. He followed that up with another Kaufman collaboration, and one of my favorite films of all time, Adaptation.

Fast forward to October 2009, both of these men; creative, genius, masterful at their art, have converged. Jonze, with the help of co-writer Dave Eggers, has adapted Sendak's classic into a dark piece of cinema. After 3 years of battling with the studio over the vision of the project, and spending all of 2009 to hype it with the help of Arcade Fire, it has finally graced us with its presence.

The story, if you are totally oblivious, follows a young boy named Max. He is vulnerable, lonely, but an incredibly caring individual. After having a terrible day Max wants the attention of the only person who really seems to love him, his mother. When he doesn't understand why she won't constantly listen to him, he lashes out in a fit of anger; "I'll eat you up!" He screams to his mother while energetically dodging her every attempt at stopping him from destroying anything. After biting his mom, he runs out of the house, and into his imagination, where he takes a small boat out into the ocean, to the island of the Wild Things.


Upon reaching the island, Jonze had a lot of room for interpretation, as in the book, there is very little said on the island. Each Wild Thing has a personality of their own. And they are all incredibly in need of therapy. With childlike interplay, Max is able to keep them all from eating him. He proclaims he has a sadness shield and is a king, they make him their king.

What Jonze is able to do on the island is something few people would have been able to accomplish. He allows for each Wild Thing to have their own specific personality, but each one's personality can be traced back to a piece of Max's sadness. Carol, voiced wonderfully by James Gandolfini, deals with his pain with anger. He lashes out by destroying things, or yelling at people. Max and Carol bond more than any of the others.

Carol: It's going to be a place where only the things you want to happen, would happen.

Max: We could totally build a place like that!

When Max becomes King, he is forced to confront all of the Wild Things in ways he never expected. When they complain about still being sad, after he promised them happiness, he gets angry. The self proclaimed downer of the group, Judith(Catherine O'Hara), even berates Max, exclaiming; "Happiness isn't always the best way to be happy."

What we see here is the idea, made famous by Thomas Moore, of a Utopian vision. A place where there would be no more sadness or pain, no more suffering or loss. Jonze and Eggers show that there is no such thing as a Utopia. It is part of maturing or growing up to realize that life will never be perfect. Perfection just isn't something that is of our world, even if that world is wholly imagined, it is impossible to attain.


With Carol's insecurities about one of the Wild Things, KW, leaving, because she found new friends, when he is seemingly in love with her, we find the conflict that has caused all of the Wild Things to be in such a sad state. Max's conflict was caused, in part, because of his mothers new boyfriend, and him losing the attention he craved from her. He simply didn't understand. Here we find Max's parallel.

In a scene, involving Max and KW, in which some viewers might find gross or weird, Max is reborn, in a sense, and finally understands that his mother also is in need of love. Not just from him.

If there are any problems with the film, it lies near the end. There is a dramatic build when Max is going back to reality that, while heart stirring , yes, seems somewhat manipulative compared to the rest of the film. The music builds and crescendos and it felt somewhat forced, but I can't say I didn't fall for it hook, line and sinker, and would gladly do so again. It got a little misty in the theater, I will say.

Criticisms that have stemmed about this being a children's/family film, and having such dark material, must be from those who have obviously not read the book in awhile. While Sendak's illustrations are a bit more brightly colored than the Wild Things are in the film, the few sentences they say certainly lean towards less than childlike appearances. Especially when Max first arrives and the book states he was greeted by the Wild Things gnashing their teeth and roaring their roars and so on. And while king, Max feels lonely.

Jonze has captured that in a unsanitized way. He seems to have made an honest and meaningful piece of art that draws parallels to Wizard Of Oz, Alice In Wonderland and even that 1989 Fred Savage/Howie Mandel classic Little Monsters. It is definitely a kid's film, because it deals with the feelings kids so often have, that most children's "art" is afraid to deal with in our culture of Santa Clauses and Easter Bunnies, we can't fathom our kids finding truth and meaning from something scary. Real life is scary and while I wouldn't condone forcing a kid to sit through it out of torture, if the kid truly was scared, I wouldn't hide it from them either.


As mentioned in those previous family films, Dorothy is caught in a tornado and almost killed by a witch. Alice must deal with some creepy things, as well as be threatened by the queen to have her head cut off! How are these things child friendly, but not loneliness?

In this day and age, artists like Spike Jonze are important, because they use their art as a mirror for us to see ourselves in. Where The Wild Things Are is about so much more than all the words I wrote before it, it is foremost about love, and how we deal with the feelings that love causes. In the end, without using any words, Jonze offers us the answer that unconditional love is the most beautiful and hopeful thing we could ask for, remember; "and it was still hot."

"The only place I get hurt is out there." REVIEW

The Wrestler-2008-Darren Aronofsky

........................................

I have always been a person who becomes obsessed about one particular thing, and goes with it for awhile and then grows bored and moves onto something else. In high school I loved to play music and constantly wrote songs and played shows, now as a college student I am deeply involved with learning more about cinema. Between the ages of 10-13 I had a different love though. I have always enjoyed the elaborate, the dramatic, even as a pre-teen. My love was for professional wrestling. My friends and I had our own backyard wrestling association(AWA-Awesome Wrestling Association) and we even had weekly "cable televised" events and monthly "pay per view" events, with a championship belt and all. I watched every pay per view and classic match I could get my hands on, I studied the art of professional wrestling.

I say all of that to say this. Darren Aronofsky's latest film, The Wrestler, is about an entertainer. Someone who lives for the elaborate, the dramatic, the main event. Mickey Rourke plays Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a down on his luck professional wrestler, who in the 80's was at the top of his game. Now he only wrestles on the weekends to crowds of a couple hundred if he's lucky. Randy is a relic of the 80's, like the original Nintendo, like hair metal, like long hair and leather pants. He is a part of American pop culture history, and he is fighting to stay alive.

Aronofsky does a wonderful job of allowing us to get into how this truly is a passion in these men's lives, and not only a passion, but an art form. From the back stage scenes where we see them preparing for their matches, planning them out, we get a sense of camaraderie. These men are abnormal, and they get it. They don't do this because they want to be famous, they do it for the thrill of it all.

Along the way we meet Cassidy(Marisa Tomei), a stripper with a heart of gold. She is the only person Randy really entrusts anything to. Even when she is giving him a lap dance, the man is pouring his heart out to her, telling her about his day. This is what their lives have devolved to, impersonal sexual activity in place of real physical intimacy. It is an unrequited statement about the nature of how our society has grown so detached from any type of honest emotional connection. In the whole of the film, Cassidy represents something greater than the usual stripper/hooker with a heart of gold, doing said job because she has a kid. She represents what Randy has become.


Americans have this infatuation with their heroes and for awhile, wrestlers were our ultimate hero. There's something so inevitably American about Hulk Hogan telling kids to "say their prayers" while he body slams half naked men through tables in front of millions of people. It was never In God We Trust, it has always been, In Flavor Of The Month We Trust, so long as that flavor mentions some sort of moral activity that we can connect with.

Randy is a simple man really. All he wants is to connect with someone, anyone, and to wrestle. His failed relationship with his daughter is so heartbreaking yet so revealing that you almost have to look away. As a viewer you cannot help but to see Randy as a sort of lost icon. We wish and hope for a comeback. It's excruciating to see what one man will go through for his passion.

Screenwriter Robert Siegal structures this film in a very simplistic, Hollywood style. He reveals every moment at the exact second it should be, and seemingly follows step by step a Robert McKee like screenplay. Generally, this would make such a film come out about as bland as a rock, but with The Wrestler, Siegal and Aronofsky are able to transcend the usual Hollywood archetype and create something that follows the formula while remaining genuine and organic.

Occasionally, this comes back to haunt them. The allusions to Randy being a Christ figure, while generally well handled individually, overall become some sort of amalgamation of all that is wrong with Hollywood's obsession with said Christ figure.

It goes without saying that Rourke's acting is something to behold. He plays the part to utter perfection, with such subtlety and nuance that it couldn't seem anymore real if we were seeing him literally live this out in his life.


The film's final sequence is a masterclass in film making. While things happen, as one would expect, Randy makes a speech, people come back into his life who he thought he lost, the films final few frames show something transcendent on a level that few films reach.

Wrestling with my friends, playing in a band, writing about films; to me these things have offered such tremendously joyous feelings that other simpler pleasures cannot match. I still remember at age 11, holding that championship belt up and pretending there were millions of fans cheering me on, I guess we live with that child inside of us forever.

"Some things last." REVIEW

*This review is meant to be read backwards. Please go to the bottom and read up. Thanks.

That's really what The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button becomes. A string of wonderful scenes tied together by needless story devices that one might see in an amateur's screenplay when they are trying to get a grasp of different writing techniques. Ultimately the string grows weak and almost snaps, if it were not for it's source material, there's no telling where this thing would have taken us.

There really are moments of sheer brilliance though. My favorite scene of the film has to do with Benjamin Button as a baby, and it's truly transcendent in so many ways that I would like to see the film again, if only for that short scene. The film really ties itself together kind of well, in the midst of all it's messiness. There are even some nice short films thrown into this rather un-short film(almost 3 hours, not as bad a thing as some think it is). One involving a clock that ticks backwards, and wouldn't you know it, Eric Roth HAD to throw in a real life president just for kicks(Also seen in Gump). This short scene is actually quite moving, but this film didn't need it. Nor did it need any of the book end's with the older woman and her daughter reading the diary. I'll let you figure out who they are in the context of the film.


I'm not saying Eric Roth is incompetent. This film isn't bad, really, it's quite good. David Fincher(still wrenching over his Oscar snub for Zodiac) really brings it here with beautiful shot compositions and wonderful acting. It's a pity he couldn't have seen through a lot of Roth's grievances and allowed Fitzgerald's parable to shine through.

Let's not forget the women. Yes, Benjamin Button, despite his oddity, had himself a few women, as did Mr. Gump. But there was always that one woman. Jenny, I mean Daisy(Cate Blanchett) is just that woman. Of course fate forces them together in that funny way that fate works. Leaving someone unable to fulfill theirlife's dream just so the other person will get theirs.

This film works as if Eric Roth read Fitzgerald's story and said, "We've got something here but not enough for a full length." Amidst all the hustle and bustle of writing a screenplay he thought to himself, "What's the one film everyone remembers me from? Ah Ha! Forrest Gump! Well it's been 14 years, here's to hoping they don't have good memories."


As if Roth's attempt at Gumping up Fitzgerald's already wonderful story wasn't seen enough through a naive narration by an eccentric person who lived a long, event filled life. We are given a character by the name of Captain Mike(played well by Jared Harris) who's character resembles that of a Lt. Dan(Gary Sinise) in Forrest Gump. Tie this in with the lead characters infatuation with his mama, and extraneous details to add some whimsy to the story(here it's a hummingbird in the middle of the ocean, in Gump it's a feather).

Really? Enlighten us some more, please?

"My name is Benjamin Button, and I was born under unusual circumstances. While, everyone else was agin', I was gettin' younger... all alone."

Benjamin Button(Brad Pitt) is an odd child. Born old and aging younger. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote the story after reading Twain's remark of how it is a pity that the best part of life was in the beginning and the worst at the end. Fitzgerald's short story isn't as elaborate as Eric Roth's script, nor should it be. Eric Roth added another layer to the story by having someone who shared Benjamin in a large part of his life dying as an old woman. Her daughter reads Benjamin's diary to her and we are thrown into the story with a Forrest Gump-ish narration from old Benjamin.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button is a "curious" film in the way it decides to take such an enriching story and a wonderful premise and do nothing but make a near waste of time. I say near because the film is beautiful and occasionally gripping.

...............

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button-2008-David Fincher

"You Gotta Give 'Em Hope." REVIEW

Milk-2008-Gus Van Sant

........................

2008 was not a great year for film. There have been a few gems(WALL-E comes to mind) but overall the films come out seemingly lackluster. I wouldn't say the films out this year have been terrible either though, they just seem to always have something lacking that keeps them from being wonderful. Within all of this, there is an actor, who to me has had a banner year. James Franco has been a supporting actor in both this film and Pineapple Express. Why do I happen to mention this specific actor? Because to me he grounds both films. While in Pineapple Express he plays a drug dealer with a heart. He likes to help out his grandma, and is lonely. He wants a friend to hang with him. That film is about friendship, and he really nails it wonderfully. Now in Milk, he plays Scott Smith, Harvey Milk's lover. The film opens when they meet. He is who Harvey confesses he is "forty years old and (he) hasn't done a thing". His subtlety and total comfort in embodying Smith left me yearning for more screen time with him. But Van Sant only allows him to be there when the story needs him, he doesn't try to force the character on to us simply because he is so magnetizing.

Milk follows Harvey Milk. After meeting Scott Smith, turning forty and moving to San Francisco's Castro district, he becomes interested in homosexual activism. He sees the atrocities at play and wants justice for the gay community. So he enters the political office and on the way creates a movement, a movement that because of him still has activists fighting today.

Harvey Milk had a love for life that was so enriching you can't help but smile when the man is speaking. In the documentary from 1984 The Times Of Harvey Milk, you can see the real man that Sean Penn brilliantly portrays. This movie, Milk, doesn't glamorize Milk to the point of unbelievability. It allows us to see the man for his failures and his victories. This is especially evident when Diego Luna's character enters the film. The audience might ask why Milk would stay with such a person, but he answers that very question when Scott inquires.


Gus Van Sant is a wonderfully gifted filmmaker. His film from earlier this year, Paranoid Park, is among one of my favorites of 2008. His films often have a dreamy, lucid quality to them that truly set them a part from the pack. The problem with this is when Van Sant does step back and allow his style to become a side note, his films seem to come out lacking. This is really only his third attempt at giving Hollywood a film they might like. Generally straight forward and genuinely moving. What sets Milk a part from Van Sant's other, more conventional fare is how we can see Van Sant's passion for the material. This film has a lot of heart, so much so that you can hear it pounding throughout the speakers. The problem is, even with Van Sant's passion seeping through the screen, the film does not overcome general biopic conventions. It falls prey to the who, what and where dilemma that many biopics spend too much time with. Even Van Sant's use of the opera in the third act to represent Milk's life, and politics in general, comes off a little heavy handed.

Despite it's convention the film is very moving. You can't not fall in love with Harvey. Sean Penn's performance is outstanding, and is generating a lot of awards buzz. I won't get into how deserving I think he is of that buzz except as to say I do love him in this despite his flashiness. The thing is, Milk himself was a flashy guy. He had a theatricality about him that really couldn't be denied. Penn does capture this and exudes it throughout the film's duration.


Milk has an ensemble cast of the greatest young crop of actors in Hollywood. From Emile Hirsch to Joseph Cross, all of these guys will be around for a long time. Another great performance, that was truly transcendent, is that of Josh Brolin. His portrayal of Dan White is mysterious. He keeps a rain cloud over much of Milk's achievements throughout. I'm sure everyone knows how this turns out in the end. What Van Sant and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black do with him is wonderful. While, at first, allowing us to despise the man, they then show us his utter confusion and we can sympathize with him. At the moment before he pulls off his last big scene, we see him sitting on his couch in his underwear. He looks frightened as he peaks out the window. By films end we realize what he represents. He isn't set here for us to be disgusted by, or to give Milk a good protagonist(I know this is a true story so obviously he's there because this all really happened but in regards to the way in which he is placed into the film). Dan White allows us to see an individual who is so incredibly in need of Harvey Milk's hope message yet too scared to receive it.

As has been said by many, this film has come out at an opportune time with all that's currently going on in our country and more specifically California. While the film does have it's problems, I believe films like this are important, especially in the times we are currently living. We need films that can show us tragedy yet give us hope without sentimentality or sappiness. Sean Penn's directorial effort from last year, Into The Wild, did this very thing while not allowing the typical biopic conventions to overtake the films themes. Milk is such a film and should be viewed as such. Not because Van Sant has created the film in such a way that it's obvious he wanted the story to take precedent to any kind of cinematic or stylistic device possible, which isn't a bad thing. This is simply why James Franco grounds the film. This film is not an exercise in subtlety, but Franco's performance truly is.

"Sometimes I think sitting on trains Every stop I get to I'm clocking that game" REVIEW

Slumdog Millionaire-2008-Danny Boyle

....................

For 10 million rupees, Is Danny Boyle's latest film, Slumdog Millionaire, a real crowd pleaser?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Maybe
D. What's a slumdog?

"uh, this is a tough one" Shawn parlays to the host. "But I think I'm going to go with A..."

Silence.

The host looks at his monitor for what feels like an eternity. Sweat droplets begin rolling off of Shawn's forehead as if they were auditioning to be a part of Niagara Falls.

Still there is Silence.

"Well, Shawn, I'm sorry to tell you this but...."

Silence yet again.

"You're absolutely right!!!!"

Crowd Cheers!

Slumdog Millionaire is a fairytale through and through. Albeit, a rather unconventional fairytale as we, the audience, are asked to sit through considerable amounts of fighting, torture, and sadness to reach the films ultimate conclusion. Following Jamal Malik, as he is a player on the Hindi version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? The government finds it hard to believe that someone of his low stature could possibly know the answers to the questions he is being asked. With a wonderful episodic structure, Boyle is able to show us how we truly learn things through experiencing life. The life that is truly lived is worth a million dollars.

What Boyle really does right here is that he realizes just because you have a story about poverty or third world orphans, you don't have to make it somber. While the film does strike it's somber notes at all the "right"(I put this in quotations as I feel these moments are a little too calculated) moments, a smile is kept on the viewer throughout the duration of the film.

This film really reminded me of the Disney fairy tales I watched as a child. Aladdin, Pinocchio, Beauty and The Beast, these films all asked serious questions of it's viewer but at the same time took them on a journey, ultimately leading them to their happily ever after ending.


What strikes me is the way in which Boyle(or probably the author of the book the film is based off of Q and A) portrays destiny within the film. When destiny is spoken of, it is generally said by the characters as being written. This is said quite a few times throughout the movie. One could argue that the film is in fact written, they are acknowledging that and commenting on that fact. This is obviously a film where suspension of disbelief is needed to allow for the viewer to be moved. I think they wanted to recognize that very sentiment. The film also comments, shortly, on God. Salim, Jamal's brother, does some pretty terrible things throughout the film's duration. He is also seen doing a few heroic things, but is a very guilty person. This is the only character that ever mentions God and it happens at two interesting points late in the film. If the film is written by a God-like creator called a screenwriter, who created this universe and knows exactly what will happen. Does God write destiny in our universe? This is all presupposing that God is real. While I gain something from this aspect, as I believe He is, a viewer with little or no affiliation to God in anyway, or no belief, would probably be of no interest in this theory.

Following that same subject, the film also reminded me of an Old Testament Bible story. The two brothers get at each other almost like a Cain and Able, or Issac and Ishmael. With tragedy and warmth destiny, or God's providence, or whatever it is you may want to call it, is shown by stories end.

White folk are satirized slightly within the film. A few key scenes show our utter naivety and/or ignorance of other cultures, which work surprisingly well and don't come off as heavy handed or unoriginal.

Where the film will ultimately lose people is in it's conclusion. I am afraid to say, against all judgment, I became totally engrossed in what finally happens with the characters. I believe it gets so many things right that a recent film like Twilight gets so wrong, and that is, how true love works. Even though it is a little contrived, the characters love for each other doesn't seem to be that way simply because that's what's supposed to happen for the story to work. It's truly an organic thing that lives within the film. It may seem far fetched or pointless for some, but if allow it, it can be totally riveting.


Every little episode Boyle and co-director Loveleen Tandan gives us doesn't always work, but in each one their is a bit of joy to be found. With a mish mash of culture and language, the filmmakers do beautifully capture it by using a variety of techniques. While I found myself feeling a little more lost than excited during some of the action sequences, most of the time these techniques served the story wonderfully.

The films overarching universal themes can be a little in your face at times, but, the sheer optimism of the film was enthralling and burnt a smile onto my face for hours after the credits rolled.

"In sports you should play fair. In war, you shouldn't play fair at all." REVIEW

*photo taken of director Chris Bell just hours between photos

Bigger Stronger Faster-2008-Chris Bell

.......................

If Michael Moore has taught us anything, it is the fact that documentaries are generally totally subjective. The director takes a subject they feel passionate about, finds any evidence pointing towards their thesis and ignores all other evidence pointing the other way. This goes contrary to what the public feels about documentaries. When Fahrenheit 9/11 came out there were people in a frenzy. Everything said in it just had to be true, it was a documentary. While I am definitely no Bush supporter by any means, we all know just how Moore twisted the facts and used them to bend to his own theories. To be honest, I have little problem with that as long as the film is still compelling. I just don't enjoy being manipulated.

Chris Bell has created a documentary so interested in truth, so interested in getting to the bottom of a major problem in America, that's it's refreshing. Bigger Stronger Faster is about steroid use in America. The closest we get to any people affected by steroids are the entire Bell family. Chris' brothers Mark and Mike(Smelly) Bell. We see how steroid use has affected them in their daily lives, and their family. We also get a glimpse at their religious parents and what they feel about what has happened to their sons.

Bigger Stronger Faster is at once totally light hearted and almost cheery in the sense that we are learning something in a unique way, but as the film goes on, we see how tragic it truly is. What amazes me, is how the film is interested in the facts to such a degree that it refutes itself quite a few times. We hear both sides on the steroid battle and even get examples of enhancement drugs in other fields of work.

The portrait that Chris Bell allows us to see of his brothers is the most heartbreaking part of the story. Mark, the oldest, has dreamed of becoming a professional wrestler for so long. He has a wife now and a kid on the way, yet he still isn't giving up that dream. Not only that, he isn't giving up his steroid use.
Smelly wins seemingly every weight lifting competition he joins. But his wife wants him off steroids, first, so they can have a kid, but she wants him to stay off of them. Will he or won't he? His attachment to the drug and to staying the strongest is so tragic.

It's really wonderful the ways in which the film examines the American dream. Growing up, we are constantly bombarded with the idea that, as long as we put our minds to it and try hard enough, we can accomplish anything. This is such a true statement, but at the same time incredibly misleading. Sometimes we fall short, as Mark obviously has. Are we to applaud him to continue going for his dream even though he is getting older? Or are we to join their father in grief for what he is doing to his family? It's a conflicted ideal to begin with. Chris shows Mark as someone who really has a lot going for him, but is still willing to lose all of that to accomplish his dream.

Bell's sympathetic approach to his brothers and other steroid users really struck me as genuine. You can tell the guy has so much respect and adoration for all of these people, while at the same time grieves their choices.

To me, the film transcends its material in a small scene where Chris and his father are talking in a restaurant. His father goes on about how we just have to love people, that's all it comes down to. Everyone makes big mistakes, but that doesn't stop them from doing great things. He offers examples from the Bible, like King David and Abraham, and compares those using steroids to these men of the Bible. To some, this may seem a little contrived, but to me, it really struck me as beautiful. Here is a man, who earlier in the film was expounding on the ways in which his oldest son is being an idiot, yet in this scene, we hear how he can overcome those initial feelings of annoyance with his son's choices and feel that he is still capable of some truly astounding things.Bigger Stronger Faster is not the hardest hitting of documentaries, but it's earnest approach and journalistic integrity should not be cast aside. It's not everyday that most Americans see this subculture. We are left to see it from our couch watching ESPN as MLB players are accused of drug use time and time again. We put little thought behind what has caused these men to do such a thing. Bell gives us a grey world where nothing is in black and white, I hope Michael Moore was watching.

"I never wash my pants. I like to keep the night on them. "

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist-2008-Peter Sollett

........................

In the mid-90's Richard Linklater directed a masterful film starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy where we witness two characters meet, hit it off, and subsequently spend the entire night out together falling in love. It is the kind of romantic film that leaves you with a certain type of lightness, where you know you just saw some type of beautiful human interaction, but find it hard to express. Peter Sollett has directed a film that tries to fall into a similar vein, but instead, falls flat.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist gives us two sweet and lovable characters to follow as well. There's Nick(Michael Cera) the awkward yet adorable musician with a soft heart. And Norah, she's the daughter of the Electric Lady Studios owner, and has a wicked taste in music. Throughout the course, they meet, and go on a search for the band Where's Fluffy, which all the characters seemingly love. Hilarity ensues throughout the night. Before Sunrise-lite is what they should have named it.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (or as I like to call it Nick and Norah's Infinitely Long Title) seems to live or die on how truly hip it can be. Characters name drop indie bands of all types and litter their conversations with mentions of I-Pod's and how totally gay friendly they are. Sometimes trying so hard to convince us it's OK to be gay that it rings false. It's not a slight to the film to be gay friendly, I actually loved that aspect. The characters mentioned homosexuals without batting an eye, like it was an everyday part of life. What the film does with this though, is inadvertently use it to make some jokes on behalf of the homosexuals littered throughout. Nick has a band(The Jerk Offs) where he is the only straight member. I found that to be an interesting twist. At once, when this seems to be played out very wonderfully, we then get a scene where they go into a gay club and every guy they pass winks and smiles at Nick. I have never met gay guys who act like this. Maybe I am from an alternate universe to this, but it seems they were force feeding a homosexual stereotype while still trying to maintain credibility by being gay friendly.

It's hard to wrap my head around how utterly precocious this film is as well. It wants to be so cute and hip that it really loses track of it's characters. Oftentimes we are stuck in mundane conversations filled with nothing but void name droppings of hip bands. Really, Norah's summation for why she thinks Nick has too many The Cure songs on his I-pod is mind numbingly stupid.

Let me stop there. Perhaps I am being too hard on the film. I honestly don't enjoy tearing things down, but I am letting my honest opinion choose which letters my fingers are to press. This film really isn't a trainwreck like I have made it out to be. We get some really wonderful moments here.

First off, Michael Cera is quite possibly the funniest person on the planet. Not in terms of sheer LOL-ness, but in the ways in which he can subtly say one line that would never be funny said any other way or by any other person. Kat Dennings is also nice in the film, and while I think she has a career ahead of her, she isn't quite there yet. The supporting cast are all fine as well. Nick's ex-girlfriend plays super bitch superbly, although she seemed a little young looking to be such a sex-goddess, or perhaps I am getting too old for this.

I could definitely relate to Nick on so many levels. I am of a similar make. In high school I was playing in bands and playing shows, had a terrible car and had trouble getting my guitar into it sometimes. Nick's plight with his ex is also very relatable. While he often makes stupid decisions, I applaud the film for being more realistic as more often than not, that is the decision any guy would make in that moment.

There are quite a few cameos littered throughout the film as well. Seth Meyers, John Cho, Kevin Corrigan, all do wonderfully small, but funny things. Andy Samburg of SNL and Hot Rod steals his scene as a hobo outside a church though.

If it weren't for the utter cuteness and hipster attitude of the film, I believe I could have jumped on the bandwagon more often. I wanted to know Nick and Norah, their moments alone are some of the best in the film. Every detraction, every instance of following Norah's drunken friend wondering the streets of New York left me with an uneasy feeling.

Peter Sollett definitely had some type of talent here. I enjoyed the look he gave the film and the somewhat John Hughes feel of the film, and can see him making great, entertaining cinema in the future, but for now, I'll keep watching Juno for my hipster cuteness.

"Mayo is sick." REVIEW

Paranoid Park-2008-Gus Van Sant

.......................

"I don't know if I'm ready for Paranoid Park" Alex says while skateboarding down an empty sidewalk with his friend Jared. Jared replies with assurance, "Yeah, but no one's ever really ready for Paranoid Park."

And so goes Gus Van Sant's film, released earlier this year. Paranoid Park is a work of lush visuals, deliberate yet soulful pacing, and cinematic experience. The film isn't told through basic story telling techniques, but told through the mind of a teenage boy who is revealing his guilt to us, one memory at a time.

In Paranoid Park we follow Alex, a young skateboarder stuck in the middle of everything. He has a best friend he skates with, a girlfriend he wants to break up with, and parents who are separated. Throughout the course of the film we witness a horrific accident that Alex is somehow involved in that offers him a tidal wave of guilt and fear.

What Van Sant brilliantly executes with such an idea is to not set us into any cliche' territory. This could easily become some sort of neo-noir or detective film, or it could easily become a gripping drama about a teenage kid dealing with teenage life. Instead, Van Sant simply allows us to experience the inner workings of Alex's head. Much like the 8mm footage of the skateboarders going up and down effortlessly throughout the lively hills and dips of the skatepark, we are lost in Alex's head, just drifting, hoping we just land without a problem.
Alex is given advice by a friend to write down his thoughts, just to get them out. We see, various times, Alex, slowly writing the words on paper; Paranoid Park, as if each letter is fighting to stay within the led of the pencil. Through this letter, we get Alex's narration, performed perfectly by Gabe Nevins, who is a non-actor. It's almost as if the words aren't written. The way in which Alex speaks is so honest that it's hard to believe that these words didn't just find themselves on the tip of his tongue just before he speaks them. Van Sant casts the entire film to perfection, with the exception of Alex's girlfriend Jennifer(Taylor Momsen) who is truly awful. Ironically enough, she is, I believe, the only actual actor in the film. She played Cindy Lou Who in Ron Howard's totally forgettable How The Grinch Stole Christmas.

The score is also a form of brilliance. It's lush instrumentals and soft rhythms add to the ebb and flow of the film, which rolls along as if it were an ocean, rhythmically moving, like it's known no other form of movement.
By the time we reach the end of the 80 minute's or so, you realize how perfectly timed and paced Van Sant made this film. It is rare to see such confidence by a director. Van Sant seemed to know exactly what he wanted to do with every cut, every long take, there isn't a second wasted.

In a time where skateboarders in film have become stereotyped to either encapsulate idiotic punks, or uber cool kids who just replaced a football with a skateboard, it's nice that Van Sant had the capacity to actually make a film with skateboarding, and not allow cool tricks or radical dudes to take over the screen. Paranoid Park is just a simple, intimate portrait of a teenager dealing with guilt and fear. Don't expect a climax, or pay off in the end, that's not what this film is, it's almost like a journey that you are only in the middle of once the credits start rolling.

"I dream about being with you forever. " REVIEW

Twilight-Catherine Hardwicke-2008

.......................

Not to be confused with the 1998 Paul Newman film, Twilight, directed by Catherine Hardwicke, is the new it thing among teens. A young adult novel, written by Stephanie Meyer, adapted for the screen, is not unlike another book turned film that had tweens and teens in a frenzy. I am recalling the seven part saga that is known as the Harry Potter series. Now about to release it's sixth film, Harry Potter is always among the highest grossing films of the year. The comparison is apt, but does it really seem fair? Is the recent Twilight frenzy just a new ploy to get the kids filling the seats or is there a level of depth, as I would argue that the Harry Potter series has, hidden within this myriad of romance, love and, of course, vampires.

Twilight follows Bella(Kristen Stewart) as she moves in with her father in a Washington town called Fords, while her mother and step father are on the road with his minor league baseball team. She attends the local high school where she meets a group of friends and is quickly accepted as part of their clique. Amongst this clique we get a slew of fun, quirky characters. The one that stuck out to me was Anna Kendrick, playing Jessica Stanley. Kendrick has impeccable comic timing, as well as an innate sense of how the character would react under any circumstances. She really is such a minor character, but I left the theatre thinking about her performance(which was reminiscent of the great Kristen Wiig of SNL fame).

Anyways, we were just getting to the juicy part. All of the sudden, one day, Bella sees this totally HAWT guy named Edward Cullen(a heavily made up Rob Pattinson) and is like totally unable to keep her eyes off of him. After initially being put off, they become friends and then realize their deep connection, until, she finds out his dark secret. He's a V-A-M-P-I-R-E. Wouldn't you know it, all the good ones are either taken, gay, or immortal, mythological, blood sucking extortioners who are unable(or in this case unwilling, I guess) to be seen in the sun.

So Bella and Edward fall in love and so on and so on...

This is what the kids are eating up these days? This is an obvious new take on the Romeo and Juliet story. Which in itself has been played out over thousands of times in all different types of settings. I enjoy the idea, and maybe the book is better, but the film is filled with problems, that I'm not sure I would care to see fixed.

After the initial opening, we are thrust into this new world with Bella, who we get to know from her voice over. I like the way in which we see everything through Bella's eyes. We learn new things as she does. Rarely, if ever, is there a time that we know something she doesn't or vice versa(besides that fact that we already know Edward is a vampire). The film takes it's time setting things up, but after the first act decides that Bella has realized that Edward is a vampire. This seems a little ludicrous to me, although the clues are obvious I guess. But really, vampire? How many times have a number of odd things happened to you with another person and it crossed your mind that they are possibly of another species.

Herein lies the films major problem, why are there vampires? Really...I'm curious...Is it at all relevant to what's going on between the characters? There can be a connection made that, in Edwards case, his blood lust is a metaphor for his hormones raging for Bella. I believe the case for this is strong, and interesting. We are given a scene where Edward and Bella begin getting physical but Edward jumps back, and comments on how he might give in to the temptation. Of course, in the film, he is talking about sucking her blood, which is amazingly more appropriate for families to sit and watch together than sex is on the big screen, but that's another thing altogether. The sweetness comes from what happens next. Edward and Bella spend the night together talking, laughing and cuddling. It's a little cheesy, but I was heartwarmed by the idea that love can grow and become fruitful without the sex. It's an interesting thought nonetheless.

Where this theory leaves us though is asking why are there other vampires then? are they too wrestling with hormonic passion? Not really. It would have been interesting to see it play out that they all have their vices that their lust for blood becomes a metaphor of. No examples come to mind, but it could have become about obsession and where our lusts take us(for power, money, sex, etc.). The problem with this, is that that also lives within another film altogether. This is a love story. While a lot of the focus is reliant on that, it seems they detract from it often to show some "cool" vampire doings, like playing baseball? Uh, while it is definitely an original idea to see vampires play America's favorite past time, where is the relevance?


Overall the film is a total bore. It is a film that most Hollywood producers foam at the mouth for screaming, "It has romance, action, and laughs(albeit these are a little sparse)!" You would think this could be a film that would sell to young girls(romance) young guys (action) and anyone else that are interested in romantic action or action filled romance(What most films try to do actually). Twilight chugs along with absolutely no tension, no suspense and worst of all, no heart.

Hardwicke really fails at everything here. Her direction seems to be totally complacent and without and kind of inspiration. She seems to have just set up cameras and asked the characters to act out the book. Never was there a time where I forgot I was in a movie theatre. Never was there a time where I feared for a characters safety. Never was there a sense of danger or excitement. Am I too old for this? Is it just that I am not the target audience? I feel that critics are being disingenuous to young girls when saying, "Well, it's a bunch of crap, but young girls will eat it up". Why do we not say the same thing when Transporter 3 is released? "Well it's a load of crap, but the young boys will all go crazy for it". Yes, this film does have a few touching moments, but the directing was a huge let down, even with material that isn't that groundbreaking to begin with.

This film will make loads of money though, as will the rest of the franchise. I'm just hoping it ages, like the Harry Potter series has, and gets better as the series goes along(this is not to say that each Potter film has been subsequently better). If not, and the money still roles in, then we blame it on the 14 year old girls.

"There are nearly 13 million people in the world, none of them are an extra." REVIEW

Synecdoche, New York-Charlie Kaufman-2008

...............................

It isn't often that we are offered a film such as this. Charlie Kaufman's latest opus Synecdoche, New York has left many a viewer baffled at it's sheer audacity, at it's total disregard for regularity, at it's blatant lack of "American" filmmaking. It's easy to be afraid while viewing such a film, but it is such a film that should be championed.

Kaufman is the screenwriter of such art house fare as, Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. With all the credibility he has garnered from his outstanding run of film's, Synecdoche is his directorial debut.

The film follows Caden Cotard(Phillip Seymour Hoffman), a married theatre director with a four year old daughter. Caden is constantly worried about death. He directs a rendition of Death Of A Salesman, using young people in the place of the main characters. After Caden's wife, Adele(Catherine Keener), leaves him, taking their four year old daughter Olive, Caden's fears grow. He loses track of time, even going so far as believing his wife has only been gone a week, when, in fact, it has been a year. As the saying goes, "Time flies when you're having fun", no one mentions the fact that time basically only flies whenever we don't want it to.

Caden then receives a MacArthur Genius Grant, and decides he wants to do something with his life. He wants to create a huge masterpiece of theatre using truth as his guide. He creates a life-size replica of his town and begins directing reenactments of his own life theatrically.


The plot truly goes in so many different directions, but a film like this should not be studied for it's plot. It is structured in such a way that it would be impossible to make sense of time, place and even reality. Scenes come at us seemingly haphazardly, but they are linked with common traits of theme and substance. This isn't the type of film where we are to examine and think, "Was it all in his head?" or "Is this some sort of day dream?", but the questions we should be putting forth are, "Why is this important?" I won't pretend to have Synecdoche figured out, and that's the point. This isn't a film to be totally figured out. Can it be mastered? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that one can grasp all of it's themes, and get a feel and understanding of every character's purpose, but no this film is of the caliber that it cannot be subjected to a theoretical plot analysis of any type.

Kaufman seems to be exercising his own demon's here, and this is something that also makes this film so mesmerizing. While Caden is searching for truth through his epic directorial effort, could Kaufman be expounding that very same sentiment?

It's as if Kaufman is given a sheet of paper, he proceeds to shred that paper into many different pieces and throws them into the air. Some land near each other, some further away, some are blown out of viewing distance, but they are all still connected. They are all pieces that fit together, and Kaufman follows each one of them to their end. This is truth. This is art.

Caden's existential dilemma is played out through various scenes and reenactments, but we are never given a monologue to explain where Caden truly is at this point in his life. This film is not of our world.
Synecdoche, New York is a film of grand ambition, reminiscent of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, not in it's overall themes or basic plot, but in the kind of questions it is asking, and the way in which we are presented with these questions. This isn't a film of answers, it's more philosophical than that(just like 2001). The viewer is given questions to ponder and relate back to the film. We are given no moral to hold fast to and teach our children, we are simply shown truth for what it is, life for all it carries. This film's messy structure is, in itself, a reenactment of the way in which our mind recalls life. Life is messy, the scenes of our life don't flow perfectly together like a storybook. Often times we aren't met with a connecting scene in our life for months, or years, to the scene or moment we have just encountered. This is where Kaufman examines the human condition to utter perfection. We are all messy, we are all lonely, we are all imperfect.

I will always champion films that encourage me, not only to live a better life, but to live the life more abundant. To get out there and do something, get excited about something and act on it. This is such a film.

"Suck It, Reindeer Games!"

Role Models-David Wain-2008

...........

Two comedic character actors finally get a shot at sharing a starring role in a recent widely released film. Paul Rudd and Sean William Scott are funny guys, but rarely do we see them get their due. Sean William Scott had the unfortunate job of becoming a character that would embody his entire career, Stifler. And if that isn't enough he hasn't outgrown him. While lately, he seems to be trying with films like The Promotion and Mr. Woodcock, did anyone actually see those? Not only did no one get around to watching them, I doubt there will ever be a time when someone looks at them(Mr. Woodcock especially) and thinks to themselves, I should really watch this, nay, I NEED to see this.

David Wain has redeemed Scott and finally given Rudd the screen time he has earned. Wheeler(Scott) is Stifler, only a bit more mature. We actually feel for this character, and he too actually feels for other characters. What has been done here with brilliance is something that Apatow has really grabbed a hold of recently. Think of a plot you have seen a million times, fill the roles with hilarious but not quite A-list actors, add a touch of sugar and place on simmer for 90 minutes.

This isn't a perfect film by any means, and it also isn't going to really blow anyone away. What this film will do is provide anyone watching it with an enjoyable time, well written characters and absurd comedy.

David Wain is most known for his work with The State and Stella, but has recently directed 2 films prior to this(Wet Hot American Summer and The Ten) and while all of his other work takes comedy to such an absurd level that it's hard to get just anyone to sit down and watch it, this film reigns that absurdism in a bit, puts a bow on it and gives it to it's viewer as a gift. This might be a good thing, may be bad, depending on the viewer.

Another wonderful thing about this film is the fact that no one plays second fiddle. Everyone is hilarious. Jane Lynch is hysterical(watch out for the hot dog trick, Ken Marino and her have a little more fun a bit into the credits) Ken Jeong proves that he is the funniest man alive and of course Chistopher Mintz-Plasse and Bobb'e J Thompson(Augie and Ronnie respectively) are perfect fits for their roles. Anyone who thought Mintz-Plasse was only McLovin needs to look out, this kids going places.

Throughout all these outstanding comedic performances we get a bit of a romance between Rudd and Elizabeth Banks. While this romance is what basically drives everything that follows in the story, it is unnecessary and cliche'. The film could easily work with a few tweaks and drops this whole storyline, but with it in there, we aren't really hurt either.

What basically works out the best is that nothing is wasted here. Every throw away line used by a character is brought back into context within the film. You haven't seen KISS like this before.

While I will commend Wain more for his work with Stella, I really think he hit all the right notes with Role Models and hope all these actors aren't strangers over there in Hollywood. I am looking forward to seeing them all again.

"Princess Leia ain't never had no sex with Han Solo in the Star Wars."

Zach and Miri Make a Porno-Kevin Smith-2008

................

Zach and Miri Make a Porno. What the hell else do you need to know?

To be honest, while that is the basis of the film, I believe it was the words of the film criticism god Ebert that can sum it up, "A film isn't about what it's about." If there were ever a film that earned that statement, well better examples can be found, but you get my point.

Zach and Miri are two late 20's losers barely able to pay rent. They are best friends who have known each other since the first grade, and inconsequentially have not once felt feelings for one another. When their electric and water gets turned off and they have nowhere else to turn, they decide to make a porno for some quick cash.

And with that plot line, described in the film's title, we are off and running.

Director Kevin Smith isn't really mining new ground here with his usual raunchy, but sweet humor. And to Smith's credit his filmmaking abilities are obviously improving. The camera moves, the city looks beautiful, he plays with color palettes yet still allows it to be all character and story.

The movie opens perfectly setting the characters up by showing rather than saying, which is occasionally a fault of Smith's very wordy scripts. The first act flies by and it is perfect. Each note is hit with utter grace and everyone shines. Justin Long steals the show though as a gay porn star. He plays it against the usual stereotype of homosexuals, but at the same time, is playing up those same stereotypes.

After the first act though, the comedy gets a little hit and miss. This is especially true for a certain sight gag that really doesn't fit in here, even amidst all the raunch.

When they begin making the porno is where I believe Kevin Smith has achieved a new level of maturity with his writing. This is not to say that the jokes are mature, but what he sets up is at once ingenious and completely fitting for the film.

It reaches a level of meta-ness. We are watching this film within a film unfold and when something happens and breaks that apart, our film reaches that same level of climax. It's hard to comment on without totally giving away but if you aren't paying attention then it comes across as cheesy but when you get the irony it plays out perfectly. Especially when Jason Mewes(Jay in the other of the View Askew films) gets to lay out the films themes with subtlety by explaining the dutch rutter to Zach.

Those that are saying Smith is trying to grab hold of Apatow's thunder may be somewhat right, but in retrospect he actually chose Rogen as Zach before Knocked Up even hit theatres. So at that point Rogen was still virtually unknown. Everyone seems to forget that it is Apatow that has taken the formula of Smith, yet made it a little more accessible and mainstream. If asked to say which one was the better filmmaker, all that anyone would need to do is look at the frames of the films. While Smith isn't some supreme visual artist his films have a look all their own, while Apatow's films, in regards to looks, could be directed by most anyone.

In the end with all of it's shortcomings I think in terms of filmmaking, Zach and Miri is a huge step up for Smith. But with all the praise I have given I was slightly disappointed. I have found much beauty and worth in many of Smith's efforts(Chasing Amy especially) and was hoping to find that same level. Not in the sheer look or feel of the film, but in terms of the screenplay I don't feel like Smith focused enough on these characters when we reached the film within a film section. He focused not only on the meta-narrative I already discussed, but also on poop jokes and sex jokes in terms that could be distracting. Although I particularly thought that Jason Mewes and Katie Morgan's sex scene was hilariously staged and executed.

Smith makes personal films, and that resonates with a lot of people. Those who don't like him have their reasons, and those reasons are perfectly understandable, but when you do relate to his canon on a transcendent level they become more than the sum of their parts.

.....................

In news sort of related to this review; after seeing Zach and Miri Make a Porno I have decided that for my next director study I am going to look at the 7 films Kevin Smith made before Zach and Miri. I know that in terms of credibility this may not make me look like the most knowledgeable film blogger out there, but I have a real affection for the man and many of his films. This is not to say that I believe he is the best filmmaker out there of course, but I have found surprising amounts of depth and beauty in the world Smith creates and have always wanted to delve a little deeper into that. So starting in a few weeks Kevin Smith will get the Deadpan run down.

"You mean like pulling out their toenails?" W. Film Review

W.-Oliver Stone-2008

................

Oliver Stone's latest film W. seems to do little in the way of importance. In general Stone's films have been filled with different views on politics, war, race, and so on. But lately it seems that Stone has gone kind of soft. His latest efforts have been extremely unimportant films who don't even seem to know what they want to be. Don't get me wrong, he is tackling important subjects (World Trade Center especially) but he seems to be doing so in such a way that even he doesn't know exactly what he is doing. Is it always important for a controversial filmmaker to remain controversial? No, not necessarily, but I am reminded of what the great Ingmar Bergman once said, "If I have nothing to say and I just want to make a film, I don’t make the film. The craftsmanship of filmmaking is so terribly stimulating, dangerous and obsessing that you can be very tempted. But if you have nothing to come with … try to be honest with yourself and don’t make the picture"

Oliver Stone seems to think he has a lot to say, and at first glance he does, maybe too much. W is an exercise in saying a whole lot without saying anything at all.

We follows W. as he works his way from frat boy to President of The United States. We see basically anything we have read, or heard about Bush, put to screen and reenacted in some fashion. Bush choking on the pretzel, Bush and Laura meeting, Bush buying the Texas Rangers, helping campaign for Poppy(H.W.) in '92 and the main focus is the lead up to and decision of the War in Iraq.

Before W. was released into theatres I saw an interview with Oliver Stone On Real Time With Bill Maher. While Maher praised the film, the only things he really said was the fact that the film is basically Bush's greatest hits, and mentions the pretzel scene. I have to admit, from hearing that, I got a little excited. I cannot explain the reasoning behind it but I concocted this whole film in my head surrounding this absurd moment in W's life where he almost died choking on a pretzel. I thought of Stone making this a metaphor for the entire life, and presidency of W. In a sense, I guess he sort of did that, but it just seemed haphazardly thrown in there. In this same interview Stone explained how George W is such a brilliant and interesting dramatic figure. He explained how in the making of Nixon he understood the extreme guilt that Nixon felt and wanted to exhibit that throughout the film. In turn he exclaimed how Bush is so astounding because he feels utterly guiltless for the things he has done. He is a completely earnest human being.

This sentiment did come across in W, but not in the way I expected. This thought doesn't shine through with subtle moments of bliss, but rather Stone gives this film a total sense of boredom. I could not help wondering at times, why am I watching this? I understand these are important to get the whole spectrum of W, but they are brought together in such a amateur way that you realize this is a dramatization, I don't feel empathy for these characters at all. And while I can applaud Stone for keeping a distance and not forcing his beliefs down our throats and proclaiming that George W. Bush isn't the best President this country has had(No kidding) I cannot root for this film, simply due to it's lack of a heart.
Where the film finds its footing is in a few wonderful instances. The relationship is wonderful between Poppy and W, and a real basis for a lot of what W seems to do in his life. I was wanting to explore this theory more in depth, and while it is the closest we get to a complete subplot, it doesn't all hold together. A few random occurrences of Bushie in the Rangers stadium hoping to catch an imaginary fly ball from center field give us visuals that are subtle enough for us to have to think, but out there enough to allow the audience to understand their place in the film.

The most wonderful thing about W is the outstanding performances. From Richard Dreyfuss(playing the ultravillain Dick Cheney) to Jeffrey Wright(Colin Powell) to Elizabeth Banks(who doesn't get much but shines in everything she does do) we are overloaded with great acting that doesn't come across as caricature or impersonation but as actual characters that just happen to be real people. Of course the highest praise goes to Brolin, who takes it to the edge of being an over the top impersonation but holds back just enough to make it absolutely perfect.

Overall W. has it's moments but they are few and far between. Bill Maher really had it right when he said it was like Bush's greatest hits. W. is exactly that an album filled with wonderful songs but as a whole they could never work out to be amazing.