Thursday Movie Picks: Con Artists

Midnight in Paris

Directed by Woody Allen.

2011. Rated PG-13, 94 minutes.
Cast:
Owen Wilson
Rachel McAdams
Marion Cotillard
Kathy Bates
Michael Sheen
Carla Bruni
Adrien Brody
Kurt Fuller
Mimi Kennedy
Tom Hiddleston
Corey Stoll
Lea Seydoux

Gil Pender (Wilson) is a successful Hollywood screenwriter who wants to break into legitimate literature. To that end, he’s working on a novel. He’s also on vacation in Paris with his fiancé Inez (McAdams) and her parents. We immediately learn that he longs to have been alive and in the city during the 1920s when many of the greatest artists of all time roamed its streets. His days are spent with Inez around her friends and family. More often than not this includes Paul (Sheen), an insufferable know-it-all. In an effort to get away from Paul’s incessant pontification, Gil finds himself taking late night walks alone. It just so happens that every night at midnight he’s scooped up by some people in this movie’s version of a DeLorean and they take him to precisely where he wants to be: Paris in the 1920s. Shortly, he’s face to face with F. Scott Fitzgerald (Hiddleston) and Ernest Hemingway (a particularly good Stoll). He get his manuscript read by Gertrude Stein (Bates). He also gets acquainted with a number of others such as Picasso (Marcial Di Fonzo Bo) and Bunuel (Adrien de Van). Each morning he’s back in the present longing to get back to the past. Yes, this is a movie about his romantic view of a particular city but also about traditional romance, too. Is Inez really right for him? Perhaps it’s Picasso’s on-again, off-again mistress Adrianna (Cotillard). After all, the two take a shine to each other.

Midnight in Paris gets points for being an atypical romantic comedy. The genre is filled with tales of boy meets girl that proceed through a succession of predictable ups and downs. They only differentiate themselves by the preposterousness of their situations. Seriously speaking, what could be more preposterous than a time traveling aspiring novelist meeting his long deceased heroes and possibly falling in love with their women? The difference is those other movies pass themselves off as only slight exaggerations of the type of romance we’re all sure to experience when we meet that special someone when in truth they’re farcical, at best. This film understands its place. It knows it is presenting us with impossible events and runs with it. Through characters other than Gil, it lets us know it is keenly aware how crazy this whole thing is.

The writer and director is none other than Woody Allen. As proof, the movie contains many of his usual touches. Gil is fairly similar to most of Allen’s protagonists: smart, quirky and a bit of a loner. He’s probably not as self-deprecating as he might’ve been had Allen played the character himself, though. The women are flighty, yet seem to have a keen understanding of our hero. Like the director’s best, MiP is charmingly whimsical. Unfortunately, it relies too heavily on its premise. It seems to think that transporting us back and forth in time is enough to wow us. It often settles for cute instead of going for all-out funny. Sure, there are laughs to be had. However, they’re spaced at intervals too large. Near the end, things get a bit convoluted as a third era is awkwardly introduced. Still, MiP does lots of things well. It is a good Woody Allen movie, just not a great one.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Revolutionary Road

Directed by Sam Mendes.
2008. Rated R, 118 minutes.
Cast:
Kate Winslet
Leonardo DiCaprio
Kathy Bates
Michael Shannon
David Harbour
Dylan Baker
Richard Easton
Zoe Kazan

Plot: Frank (Di Caprio) and April Wheeler (Winslet) are an unhappy couple. They suddenly decide and start planning a move to Paris in hopes of chasing their dreams and rekindling the flames of their marriage.

The Good: First and foremost, both Winslet and Di Caprio turn in powerhouse performances. They are two of the very best in the business and they do not disappoint, here. To support them, director Sam Mendes surrounds them with an excellent cast and does a masterful job telling the story. The standout among the supporting players is Michael Shannon as the supposedly mentally ill John. I say supposedly because he seems less crazy than he does simply lacking a filter between his brain and mouth. As far as telling the story, Mendes carefully weaves a tapestry of issues until they seem almost singular and explode simultaneously.

The Bad: The focus on our main couple is so strict, other potentially interesting elements are brushed aside. In particular, the Wheeler’s neighbors are profoundly affected by what’s going on. However, given a certain event there could be much more shown. They certainly could’ve had some explosive moments of their own. Also, the Wheeler children are conveniently ushered off stage and easily spared the drama. It feels as if they’re not at all aware of what’s going on in their home, much less bothered by it. As a father, I can tell you it’s just too tidy an area of such a messy relationship.

The Ugly: The reason there is blood on the carpet.

Recommendation: This is a tough drama with three brilliant performances. It not only depicts a crumbling marriage, it raises questions. Though it clearly comes out on one side over the other, the pro-life/pro-choice debate eventually comes to fuel the movie and leaves us something to chew on.

The Opposite View: Stephanie Zacharek, Salon.com

What the Internet Says: 7.6/10 on imdb.com (5/23/10), 68% on rottentomatoes.com, 69/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 8/10

The Blind Side

Directed by John Lee Hancock.
2009. Rated PG-13, 128 minutes.
Cast:
Sandra Bullock
Quinton Aaron
Tim McGraw
Jae Head
Lily Collins
Kathy Bates
Ray McKinnon
Tom Nowicki
Melody Weintraub
Sharon Morris

Plot: The Tuohy family, at the urging of fiery matriarch Leigh Ann (Bullock), take in Michael Oher (Aaron), a homeless and academically challenged boy who attends the same school as their children. Michael turns out to be a highly sought after football prospect. Based on a true story.

The Good: It bends the sports underdog genre on its ear by making the person who helps the underdog the protagonist. In this case, that person is Leigh Ann Tuohy, played brazenly by Sandra Bullock. It’s perhaps the best performance of her career. Accordingly, it earned her an Oscar for Best Actress. As a whole, the movie knows when to utilize its sense of humor and when to press our emotional buttons. That timely alternating keeps us locked in, fully vested in the Tuohy family mission.

The Bad: Alas, genre clichés still abound. We think we know every obstacle before it approaches. Moments later, our suspicions are confirmed. This combines with the fact that the story it’s based on is of extremely recent vintage to sap the film of any real sense of mystery. The questions of race and budding sexuality are too neatly wrapped up within one scene. As far as race is concerned, it's content to be another film in which near-perfect white people save a damaged black kid from the ghetto. Both race and sexuality are quickly swept under the rug by a short speech in which Leigh Ann shouts down her naysayers. Perhaps more importantly, because we knew the racial dynamics going in, the question of just how Michael’s grades rose so quickly is never really addressed. This could be because of a scene in which Leigh Ann confronts one of Michael’s teachers and says “All the other teachers are on board. What’s your problem?” Hmmm, is there something else we need to know? The movie as a whole just seems too afraid to veer from the path to “happily ever after” to tackle the tough issues.

The Ugly: Now, that’s how you finish a block.

Recommendation: This is probably the best “feel-good” movie of 2009. Like a good football team, is has a game plan and executes it well. It never surprises us one bit, but that’s okay because it entertains us and engages us. If you’re prone to crying over movies, keep some tissue nearby.

The Opposite View: Melissa Anderson, Village Voice

What the Internet Says: 7.7/10 on imdb.com (5/26/10), 67% on rottentomatoes.com, 53/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 7/10

2 Days That the Earth Stood Still

The Day the Earth Stood Still
1951. Not Rated, 91 minutes.
Director: Robert Wise. Starring Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal, Sam Jaffe, Billy Gray.
An alien spacecraft lands smack dab in the middle of Washington D.C. during a busy day. The being that emerges from the ship is shot within moments of setting foot on Earth. He survives and demands to meet with all of the planet's leaders. With WWII having ended only 6 years earlier, along comes this grim allegory of a movie that's gone on to be hailed as a sci-fi classic. The being inside, Klaatu (Rennie) represents us, therefore it's very important that he looks like us. He's no green-skinned monster who instantly opens fire on us. He is us, giving a warning to ourselves. As far as movie-making prowess goes, it's a success but not an overwhelming one. The narrative drags just a bit since the tension is eased while our messenger takes a tour around D.C. Still, even that serves a purpose in the movie, so no big deal. The special fx are actually pretty stong for the era and appropriately they're used sparingly. The dialogue lacks any subtlety whatsoever which gives the movie the feeling of someone beating you over the head with their message. What's remarkable is that message is not as dated as the movie's age suggests. By changing the word atomic to nuclear and making it a little snazzier looking it could still resonate with today's audience. Hmmm....

I normally don't do this for old movies but just as a point of comparison...

What the Internet Says: 8.1/10 on imdb.com (#224 all time, 5/5/09), 94% on rottentomatoes, N/A on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 8/10

...which brings us to this...



The Day the Earth Stood Still
2008. Rated PG-13, 104 minutes.
Director: Scott Derrickson. Starring Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Jaden Smith, Kathy Bates, John Cleese, James Hong.

Plot: An alien spacecraft lands smack dab in the middle of Manhattan one night. The being that emerges from the spacecraft is shot within moments of setting foot on Earth. He survives and demands to meet with the planet's leaders.

The Good: The early parts of the movie do a nice job building tension quickly. This gives it the sense of urgency it's looking for. There's also an air of mystery as we watch a bunch of scientists and government officials who are rightfully baffled by what's going on. It's also a good looking movie, reminiscent of The Matrix franchise. Having Keanu Reeves as the star only reinforces this notion, but it's attractive nonetheless in that same monochromatic manner. Finally the new GORT, Klaatu's personal giant robot security guard is very impressive...for much of the movie.

The Bad: A constant problem for this movie is that it's ideas are solid but the execution of them is horrible. Chief among these ideas is the updated premise. The original was a warning against us causing our own destruction through atomic weapons. With our constant worry about who has nuclear weapons, I thought that was still a strong foundation to build on, obviously changing the word atomic to nuclear. However, the filmmakers opted to go with the "green" angle (hence, the greenish tint to the whole movie) and warn us about destroying the planet itself. Okay, I'll buy that but exactly why beings from other universes should care is unclear. It follows that by piling up inconsistencies at a mind boggling rate. Some of which even involves special fx - I'm looking at you, massive swarm of bugs. Next, not only is Klaatu not terribly bright for a being from a supposedly more advanced civilization but he does something incredibly idiotic. That by itself might not be so bad, but we get the sense he only does it so the movie has an excuse to try and dazzle us with cgi. Don't even get me started on the overly melodramatic and Armageddon-esque finale that's only possible because our hero came to the same realization that my 6 year old came to about 3 years ago.

The Ugly: Ya know, I liked Jaden Smith alongside his dad in The Pursuit of Happyness but he really, really...really annoyed me here.

Recommendation: This is a misguided attempt at modernization. Instead of thoughtfully updating the original it gives us the same basic setup and then repeatedly taps us on the shoulder and says "Hey, doesn't this look cool?" Even the DVD cover does this. If you look at the back of it, you'll see in large print "THIS TIME THERE'S MORE ACTION, MORE SPECIAL EFFECTS AND MORE MAYHEM!" Yawn.

The Opposite View: David Nusair, Reel Film Reviews

What the Internet Says: 5.6/10 on imdb.com (5/5/09), 21% on rottentomatoes.com, 40/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 3/10