Inside Llewyn Davis

Directed by The Coen Brothers.

2013. Rated R, 104 minutes.

Cast:

Oscar Isaac

Carey Mulligan

Justin Timberlake

John Goodman

Ethan Phillips

Robin Bartlett

Max Casella

Jerry Grayson

Jeanine Serralles

Adam Driver

Garrett Hedlund

F. Murray Abraham

It's 1961 in Greenwich Village, New York. Llewyn Davis (Isaac) is a down-on-his-luck folk singer. He has an album out that no one is buying, plays gigs here and there in local dives to make a few bucks, and sleeps on the couch of one friend or another every night. One of those couches belongs to loving couple Jean (Mulligan) and Jim (Timberlake). Jean spews endless streams of vitriol at Llewyn and continuosly declares her undying hatred of him. However, there was at least a short while where she let her guard down because she's just discovered she's pregnant and there is a possibility that the baby is his. In addition to this problem, he's lost the cat belonging to the Gorfeins (Phillips and Bartlett), another couple who lets him crash at their place from time to time. A rather interesting week ensues.

In true Coen Brothers fashion, we follow our hero on a series of misadventures as he continues to make a mess of his life. We get the sense he's been doing this for a good while. The fascinating part for us is trying to figure out whether or not he wants to fix it. Actually, that's not quite right. We're really trying to see how stubborn he is in trying to fix it his way before relenting and doing it the way others urge him. It's all a question of priorities and if Llewyn has them straight. Early on, shortly after Jean has told Llewyn she is pregnant, the two have a conversation discussing both the baby and the missing cat. By the end of it, Llewyn expresses more concern over the cat. Perhaps it's a defense mechanism kicking in after the verbal assault he suffers whenever Jean is within earshot. Maybe he is that far removed from reality that one situation is no more weighty than the other regardless of the consequences. This is what we're always trying to figure out with Llewyn. Eventually, we have to ask similar questions of Jean. As much as she hates Llewyn and proclaims her love for Jim, how is it possible the two ended up in bed together? What gives her the right to think that her decision making is any better than his? Nothing she does is above reproach. Are her tirades merely her own defense mechanism intended to disguise her true feelings?

The beauty of a Coen Brothers movie, and what makes them frustrating for some, is that even though they raise these questions they don't feel the need to explicitly answer them. They give us enough that we can argue about what we think those answers might be, but there really is no definitive right or wrong, just like in real life. In fact, this particular slice-of-life rings truer than most of the Coens' films because the situations Llewyn finds himself in are much more relatable than most of their other protagonists. He's a guy trying to make it as a musician and struggling badly. That's far more common than say, being chased around Texas by a relentless drug dealer wielding an oxygen tank, or a trio of escaped convicts becoming a renowned bluegrass band, or a pot-head trying to get money for a ruined rug from a millionaire he just happens to share the same name with. Don't get me wrong. Those are all great pictures, but not as grounded in reality as Inside Llewyn Davis.

Our star Oscar Isaac makes the whole thing work. That he's a guy determined to continue down the path he's on despite repeated failure is wholly believable. He sells us on the idea that no matter what, he knows better than you. He's going to do things his way and whatever happens happens. Because things aren't going so well with this method, there is an underlying anger to him that is consistently present. He only once berates someone. However, through Isaac's entire performance we get the sense that this is an angry, depressed little man. It seems his only joy comes from being on stage, but he can't get on enough of them to either satisfy his emotional need of them or to be able to afford a place to live. It also helps that he carries the musical performance aspect of his role really well.

Isaac isn't alone in giving us wonderful work, either. Mulligan is terrific speaking forcefully with every word exits her mouth. More than the words she says, the blunt look on her face while she does is what makes the character. The Gorfeins were played perfectly by Ethan Phillips and Robin Bartlett. Garrett Hedlund gives one of those performances that is quirky and great, but bound to be forgotten. Justin Timberlake gives a hard to judge performance. I don't hate him as an actor. In fact, I think he's usually not bad. Here, I didn't really like him most of the time. When he was performing music, it was a whole different story. Even here, you can see why he's become a pop music superstar. He has that little something extra that makes it impossible to take your eyes off him when he's working a song. Despite all of the stellar acting going on here, John Goodman steals the show as disabled, hard sleeping jazz musician Roland Turner. He is a vile person, often saying vile things, but he says them so eloquently it would be hard not to listen to him. It would be equally hard not to be pissed off at him. That's the magic of his character and Goodman pulls it off with ease.

When I first watched Inside Llewyn Davis, I wasn't quite sure how I felt about it. I mean I liked it, but I didn't know how much. I was a bit perturbed that the whole thing seemed to be just a set up for a cheap timeline trick which I won't spoil. I also had some thinking to be about that ending. I did the only logical thing I could and started writing this review. This helped me work through it, and recognize all the exquisite things going on, here. Coen Brothers films often have this effect on me. I see them and like them okay, but don't quite appreciate them until I spend some time putting some serious thought into what I just saw. Unlike most movies, theirs get better under scrutiny. This is no exception. Taken at face value, it's a movie you can easily forget. Once you start digging though, you start to unearth a bunch of treasures.

Trouble with the Curve

Directed by Robert Lorenz.

2012. Rated PG-13, 111 minutes.

Cast:

Clint Eastwood

Amy Adams

Justin Tumberlake

John Goodman

Chelcie Ross

George Wyner

Matthew Lillard

Robert Patrick

Joe Massingill

Ed Lauter

Tom Nowicki

Gus Lobel (Eastwood) has been a baseball scout for the Atlanta Braves for forever and a day. He loves the game so much he even named his daughter Mickey (Adams) after Mickey Mantle, his all-time favorite player. As it eventually happens to most of us, Gus’ eyes are going on him. That’s an even bigger deal than normal given his job. It doesn't help that Philip (Lillard), the young hotshot in the front-office wants to phase him out and rely much more heavily on his new fangled computers.

Luckily for Gus, he’s still got one friend who thinks like him and is willing to go to bat for him. That’s Pete (Goodman), who also works in the front-office. He figures out what’s wrong with his buddy and, in hopes of saving Gus’ job, convinces Mickey to tag along with her dad on a scouting trip to watch highly-touted prospect Bo Gentry (Massingill). Bo literally gets a hit on the first pitch of every at-bat until the plot requires otherwise. Since he’s so good, he is also an insufferable jackass. Scouting Bo aside, the real question is whether Gus and Mickey can survive each other. They don’t have much of a relationship mostly because Gus is a crotchety old dude who isn't happy unless he’s ripping someone a new one. Think Clint’s character from Gran Torino sans racism and cool car.

Watching Eastwood and Adams play off one another is somewhat intriguing. They combine to create a genuine portrayal of two people who care for each other but can’t communicate without it getting testy. A little less effective is the telegraphed-from-a-mile-away romance between Adams’ character and Johnny “Flame” Flanagan played by Justin Timberlake. He’s a former pitcher once scouted by Gus who is now a rival scout for the Boston Red Sox. Some of their scenes together are fun, especially if you enjoy baseball trivia. Unfortunately, her overly pushy boyfriend treating their relationship like a business transaction plus the fact that Flanagan is the only other scout that doesn't qualify for AARP makes it feel too preordained for us to get worked up about.

Things go along well enough for a good deal of the run time, but dammit, we've got problems to solve. Best handled of these is Gus and Mickey’s relationship. It feels like a logical resolution. On the other end of the spectrum is Gus’ work issue and Mickey’s love affair. That love thing is handled exactly like you suspect it will be but were praying the filmmakers aren't that lazy. Sorry, they are.

That work issue is even more ridiculous. Being a baseball fan with friends who shun the hordes of new statistics out there, I am acutely aware that this movie plays as the exact counter-argument to the Brad Pitt flick Moneyball. Even so, what this movie comes up with is just way too contrived for its own good. Basically, it’s “look what fell out of the sky!” What we’re left with is a film that plucks along in an occasionally interesting manner, thanks to the performances of its leads, but never quite gets us emotionally involved enough to buy the ending.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

Friends with Benefits

Directed by Will Gluck.

2011. Rated R, 109 minutes.

Cast:

Mila Kunis

Justin Timberlake

Patricia Clarkson

Woody Harrelson

Jenna Elfman

Bryan Greenberg

Richard Jenkins

Shaun White

Andy Samberg

Boy meets girl. Again. This time, both have just been dumped by other people. Boy is hotshot art director Dylan Harper (Timberlake). He’s just been hired to fulfill that role for GQ magazine. He got the job because he was recruited away from his own highly successful blog by Girl, Jamie Rellis (Kunis). Boy moves from LA to NY for his new gig and becomes platonic besties with Girl. The two confide in each other that they miss sex, but not relationships. Of course, they do the only rational thing and hop into bed together after laying a few ground rules. Pardon the pun. As you might expect, feelings neither wanted ensues.

Surprisingly to me, the first half of Friends with Benefits is a joy to watch. This is due, in large part, to the fact it looks like our two leads are having so much fun they can barely contain themselves. After all, they’re two attractive people who get to do a lot of rolling around naked together. It also helps that this portion of the picture is dedicated to ridiculing all we know romantic comedies to be. Our two lovebirds in denial say all the things we say about such movies. This gives it a wonderfully self-aware vibe.

The second half undermines the first by becoming precisely what the earlier parts rail against. It tries to maintain its edge by blatantly acknowledging that it has devolved into the same grandiose moments of romantic gesture as just about every other flick in the genre. Despite its embracing of its own descent into mediocrity, it still feels like a letdown since up to about the midway point it seems like a well done spoof that’s going to introduce a twist on the norm. Instead, the overall effect is that the movie says “Other movies do ‘this’ so we will, too.”

As rom-coms go, this is a little above average. The expected story arcs are fully intact. Before any of it actually happens, we know where jealousy, misunderstanding, break up and make up are all going to come in. For good measure, there’s Richard Jenkins in the ‘wise crazy person who let his true love get away’ role to impart sage advice at the pivotal moment. He has some interesting moments and is typically excellent but pales in comparison to the hysterical performance by Woody Harrelson as Tommy, Dylan’s too openly gay buddy. You’ll just have to see it to understand what I mean by “too openly”. Even though the only real reason for his character’s existence is that he owns a boat, many of the movie’s funniest moments are his. He, and the thing we come to realize as the film progresses elevates it above its contemporaries: at least this one knows it’s lame.

Bad Teacher

Directed by Jake Kasdan.

2011. Rated R, 97 minutes.
Cast:
Cameron Diaz
Lucy Punch
Jason Segel
Justin Timberlake
Phyllis Smith
John Michael Higgins
Eric Stonestreet
Matthew J. Evans
Molly Shannon

When we meet Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz) she’s quitting her job as a teacher because she is about to marry the man of her financial dreams. He abruptly dumps her because he’s finally figured out, with the help of his mom, she’s only in it for the money. With that, she goes slinking back to the classroom. She also hangs out late every night trying to snare another rich guy. Not surprisingly, teaching isn’t something she actually does. Day after day she pops in a “school related” movie for her class (Stand and Deliver, Lean on Me, etc.) and then catches up on her sleep. She’s also under the impression that getting breast implants will help her get her man, whomever he may be. Her never ending quest to save up for a boob job and find that wealthy husband ensues.

The first criteria most of us use to judge a comedy is how often it makes us laugh. With that solely in mind, Bad Teacher is merely okay. It goes for big laughs by being constantly irreverent. It also gets a lot of mileage out of juxtaposing the squareness of Elizabeth’s co-workers with her too-cool-for-the-room aloofness. This is most obvious in our heroine’s feud with a fellow teacher, the overzealous Ms. Squirrel (Punch). The two despise one another and both vie for the attentions of the same man, substitute teacher Scott (Timberlake) who happens to have a very rich family. From time to time it gets the laughs. Unfortunately, it doesn’t get them often enough. Too much of the time our bad teacher just comes across as pathetic, not funny. This makes Cameron Diaz’s performance in the lead role both an asset and liability. It’s an asset because she actually gives an outstanding performance. She plays it just enough over the top that she can still maintain believability. It’s some of her best work. However, it’s a liability because she is so believable she can’t help but engender some sadness towards her, detracting from the humor.

A comedy that doesn’t keep us constantly in stitches allows other things to eat away at it. In this case, we first notice the symptom before the actual problem. The symptom is that this film is totally void of character development. Every person here is a one dimensional caricature that never deviates from the way they are when we first meet them. There is some attempt to round out our heroine but it’s debatable whether or not she actually changes or just gives up. This leads us to the problem. This movie’s morals are out of whack. To paraphrase Elizabeth herself, it’s priorities are screwed up. Maybe it’s because I have kids close enough to the age of the students here but the misplaced sense of right and wrong is off-putting. Sure, Ms. Squirrel is on the annoying side but should caring about the kids she teaches make her a villain? Why is it a good, or funny thing that Lynn (Smith), a grown woman and a teacher who should know better, is so easily susceptible to peer pressure? Finally, Elizabeth ends up in a different job which I won’t spoil. However, when you see it ask yourself this: Is it really a good thing she got that particular job?

Before you go labeling me a prude, understand that I’m not at all against the idea of the anti-hero. After all, I’ve been called a degenerate because I think The Godfather, Part II outshines the original. I root for Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver). Do the Right Thing gets my heart pumping. The difference is in those movies there is something to debate. The ideas of what we believe to be right and wrong are at odds, struggling against each other over whether the adage that the ends justifies the means is true. In BT, the character we’re supposed to champion is simply wrong.

MY SCORE: 5/10

Yogi Bear

Directed by Eric Brevig.
2010. Rated PG, 80 minutes.
Cast:
Dan Aykroyd
Justin Timberlake
Anna Faris
Tom Cavanagh
T. J. Miller
Andrew Daly
Nathan Corddry

Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you should. If I so choose, I can walk up to any or all of my three children and beat them mercilessly. I think we can all agree that I shouldn’t. Sure, the technology exists to make a live-action movie about a computer generated talking bear and his sidekick based on a late 1950s/early 1960s cartoon. That doesn’t mean it should be done. It should be done if you have an interesting and/or funny story to tell or at least an updated take on the characters. It should not be done if you’re just going to recycle the same garbage from thousands of other crappy movies in an apparent cash-grab. Guess which approach is taken by the full-length feature film Yogi Bear?

If you must know, the plot really is the same as countless other movies. It’s so derivative, to call it paint-by-numbers would be insulting to people who paint by numbers and consider themselves real artists. Step 1: Introduce lovable, but dopey and mischievous protagonist. Of course, that’s Yogi (Akroyd). Step 2: Put said character in an environment he or she loves so much they couldn’t imagine life without it. Often, this is a house or a rec center or something that can reasonably be considered a landmark. In this case, it’s Jellystone Park. Step 3: Put said landmark in such financially dire straits it’s in danger of being foreclosed upon and/or destroyed at a fast approaching deadline. Here, it’s a week. Step 4: Have the effort to take away the landmark spearheaded by a greedy bank executive or a greedy politician. We get Mayor Brown (Daly). Step 5: Have the protagonist band together with his or her friends to either enter a contest and win or otherwise raise enough money just in time to save the landmark. Yogi and his cohorts opt for the latter. Don’t even try to tell me you haven’t seen this movie already. Just in the last six months or so I’ve seen it at least three times. It was billed as Step Up 3D, Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2 and Stomp the Yard: Homecoming. It sucked each time. I can assure you this keeps the streak alive.

You know what? All might be forgiven if this were funny. Sadly, it’s so far from funny, well, it’s not even…funny. The extent of the humor here is Yogi steps on, touches or leans against something and gets hit in the face, knocked down, flung through the air, etc. Verbal jokes are boiled down to him saying “pic-a-nic” instead of “picnic” over and over and over…and over again. Occasionally someone farts, references farting, or makes a farting noise. To be blunt, this movie thinks kids are dumb. Sure, some will laugh at first. However, after about ten minutes they will realize the well is dry. I’ll give the slow ones fifteen before the chuckles stop.

Believe it, or not, this could’ve still been salvaged. Had there been some real nostalgic value or the kids in the target audience already had a connection with the characters that might’ve been enough to save the day. The problem there? We’re talking about a 50 year old cartoon that’s been largely forgotten! Most of the kids this flick is aimed at never heard of Yogi Bear until they started seeing commercials for this…this…this odious pile of digital excrement! Most of their parents are too young to be Yogi fans! Because of this trash and Marmaduke and the Garfield movies and the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies I am dreading the day when morbid curiosity gets the best of me and I just have to see for myself exactly how bad the movie for one of my favorite 80s cartoons, The Smurfs turns out. Trust me, it’s going to be bad. You heard it here, first. And just in case we’re not clear on this, the fact that this Yogi Bear movie exists makes the world suck just a little bit more.

MY SCORE: 0/10

The Social Network

Directed by David Fincher.
2010. Rated PG-13, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Jesse Eisenberg
Andrew Garfield
Justin Timberlake
Armie Hammer
Brenda Song
Bryan Barter
Rooney Mara
Rashida Jones
Joseph Mazzello

“If you could’ve invented Facebook then, you would’ve invented Facebook,” Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) coldly says to one of the people suing him for allegedly stealing their idea. That statement is at the heart of all matters in The Social Network.. The movie never doubts Zuckerberg’s genius. It never suggest that Facebook could ever have come into existence without him. The question becomes how much did others contribute to making his vision a reality and whether or not they should be compensated.

Technically, the entire movie takes place inside a hearing room where three sides battle back and forth with flashbacks fleshing out the proceedings. Of course, there’s Zuckerberg. Then there is his former best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Garfield) suing Mark for pretty much muscling him out of the company. Finally, there’s the Winklevoss twins (Hammer in a dual role) who claim to have come up with the idea for Facebook.

Through it all, we see Zuckerberg’s not-so-humble beginnings as a drunken young man, bitter about just being dumped, venomously blogging about his now ex-girl while simultaneously hacking into much of the school’s online network to create an instant rate-a-girl site called FaceSmash. Eventually, we arrive at the point where Facebook is a worldwide phenomenon and Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world. We already know that. Many of you reading this not only have a Facebook page, but have children, parents and even grandparents that their own Facebook pages. This more about trust and what people do with it when they’ve earnied it. Trust is abused so often, we eventualyy have decide when that abuse is justified and when it is not.

TSN is also about the decade we’ve just lived through. It’s about how technology in general, and Facebook in particular, alters our world in increasingly rapid ways. It’s about how prepared or unprepared we are for those instantaneous changes. Can anyone really be prepared to go from average joe to king of all he surveys in just a few years? Strangely enough, though Zuckerberg is the focal point, the movie is not necessarily on his side. Through an excellent performance by Eisenberg he comes across as arrogant, aloof, vindictive, selfish and overly envious of others. He’s the modern day mad scientist who has succeeded in taking over the world, but found it’s not all its cracked up to be. We don’t root for him.

The person we root for is Eduardo Saverin, who put up the initial $1000 to fund the site’s development. We like him. His position seems undeniable so we sympathize with him. We desperately want Zuckerberg to come down from Mount Olympus and show gratitude to the little person that helped him get there.

This movie works because no matter how unlikeable our protagonist might be, we can see his side on a lot of things. Simultaneously, we can understand other viewpoints, as well. This keeps us locked in along with sharp dialogue in which characters rarely mince words. What also engages us is how relationships disintegrate. We’re intrigued to see if anything can be salvaged. However, the winds of sudden success has wreaked havoc on these people. Essentially, we’re watching a divorce procedure. At stake, the custody of their 500 million “kids” worldwide.