35 Shots of Rum

Directed by Claire Denis.
2009. Not Rated, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Alex Descas
Mati Diop
Nicole Dogue
Grégoire Colin
Jean-Christophe Folly
Djédjé Apali
Eriq Ebouaney
Julieth Mars Toussaint

You know what they say about us Americans who like watching foreign films? We think we’re smarter and more sophisticated than the rest of you. Along comes a movie like 35 Shots of Rum to remind me I might not be as artsy-fartsy as I’d like to think. I’ll explain.

It’s subtly written and filmed likewise. Of the movie’s 102 minutes of runtime, roughly 100 of them are very quiet. It’s beautifully acted, also subtly. It is so subtle the characters really do feel like actual people. There really is no plot to speak of so it plays like a true slice of life type of film. It’s even in French. It’s arthouse in every sense of the word. Yet, I was bored to tears and pissed off about the ambiguous ending. That last bit is most surprising. If you’ve been paying attention, you know I generally love those types of endings. Usually, the more questions I’m left with, the better. Here, not so much.

What is 35 Shots about? To be honest, I’m still not sure. We spend lots of time with Lionel (Descas) and Joséphine (Diop), a father and daughter who share an apartment. He works as a train conductor and goes out drinking with his buddies from work every now and then. She goes to college, does housework and occasionally works at a Virgin music store. I didn’t know they still had those. No, it’s not set in the past, either. I know this because the very whiny René is given an I-Pod as a retirement gift. Anyhoo, Joséphine seems to have a thing for Noé (Colin), the guy who lives in the apartment upstairs. There is also Gabrielle (Dogue), the cab driver who lives in the apartment next door. She seems to have been carrying a torch for Lionel since she learned to walk. The feeling isn’t really mutual. He likes her, he just doesn’t like like her. Oh, and there’s whiny René. He pops up every five or ten minutes to…um…whine…until he eventually does what I knew he would the first time he opened mouth.

Why was I bored? It was far too realistic. I realize that’s an odd complaint to make, but hear me out. If someone stuck a camera in most of our homes and just observed our true dailyu lives without forcing us to vote someone out, compete for a prize or give us random tasks and jobs to prove our worth, most of the viewing public would be hard-pressed to be entertained. In movies about families, dramatic devices occur at fairly regular intervals to advance the plot and/or add intrigue. Personalities are exaggerated to create sympathy, empathy, heroes and villains. In 35 Shots, it feels as if we’re watching reality without the TV. There are no votes, hypersexual tension or grand prize. These people go through their mundane existence in a mundane manner.

It takes courage and patience to make a movie like this but it lacks the magic to make its players transcend the screen. What passes for a romance feels disjointed and barren of hope until it is hastily resolved. The resolution, however, feels unreal and out of very deep left field. For all of the movie, we’re watching what seems to be everyday of their lives from the time we meet them and then, we suddenly fast-forward to a conclusion.

The 35 shots in the title is perhaps most perplexing. About midway through, we learn that Lionel either celebrates or rues a major event in his life, we’re not sure which, by downing 35 consecutive shots of rum. If he’s able to walk the next day I’d be shocked, but I digress. We’re told there is a story behind this ritual that he won’t tell at this time. This comes up again at the end of the film. Sadly, without having seen it you know as much as I about the significance of this practice. Justifying alcoholism? Probably not. If any of you brainiacs has happened to watch this movie, feel free to enlighten me.

This is a difficult film for me, if you couldn’t already tell. The writing is lyrical and sparse. People have conversations without saying a whole lot. Their pauses aren’t pregnant with the possibility of an earth-shattering revelation in the next sentence. They’re just pauses. There are no complaints to be made about any performance here. Many of the elements critics are thrilled by are present. Still, it doesn’t add up to winning cinema, for me. In my eyes, the whole equals much less than the sum of its parts.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

Splice

Directed by Vincenzo Natali.

2010. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Adrien Brody
Sarah Polley
Delphine Chanéac
Brandon McGibbon
Simona Maicanescu
David Hewlett
Abigail Chu

We all know those people who are academically brilliant but pretty much brain-dead in all other phases of life. Meet Elsa (Polley) and Clive (Brody), two such people. They work together in a genetic splicing lab and through some biological sleight of hand, have created two living, breathing blobs affectionately named Fred and Ginger. I’m sure their iconic namesakes are flattered, but whatever. The hope is that the key to curing many medical ailments lies within the genes of these creatures.

That’s all fine and dandy. However, there are some problems. The first is that, like Fred and Ginger, Elsa and Clive are a couple. This means when they leave the lab and/or decide to do anything requiring rational thought they are at more of a disadvantage than most of us. The idiocy of the other person is all they have to overcome or gain approval of with each of them secure in their belief that the other person is brilliant.

This leads to problem number two. Elsa rashly decides it is a good idea to introduce human DNA into the same cocktail they used to create Fred and Ginger, pretty much just because. After a fleeting moment of clarity passes, Clive agrees that just because is good enough and goes along with the program. They create a fetus they intend to watch and terminate before it reaches full term, again just because. Of course, full-term happens roughly overnight so they miss that boat. Out pops this thing that looks like a miniature T-rex with a rodent-like face and it’s pretty pissed off. After deciding it is too cute to kill, they settle on the idea of becoming its parents in order to observe and document things, even though they’re pretty sure what they’ve done will land them in jail if anyone finds out. So yeah, you guessed it, they’re doing it just because.

What “because” really is eventually becomes clear as mud as we watch the little creature develop. They name her Dren (Chanéac), nerd spelled backwards we’re made to understand. They also teach her lots of communication skills, since she’s clearly as intelligent as a human being but can’t talk. She also looks more and more human as the movie goes on. I mean, she still has four fingers on each hand and legs like a T-rex but the face changes dramatically. When you watch it, you’ll see this is important.

Here’s the thing: watching Dren grow up isn’t terribly exciting. We watch her learn how to get her point across using Scrabble letters, see or hear something she probably shouldn’t, get a little rebellious and get yelled at and sent to a corner. This goes on for roughly 85 minutes with occasional breaks for our loving couple to try and save their jobs due to a mishap involving Fred and Ginger.

During the last 15 minutes or so Dren is featured in two of the weirdest sex scenes ever, realizes she’s stronger than her captors…er…”parents” and involuntarily does something else to cause all hell to break loose. This raises the movie to the grand level of so-so. Honestly? I liked it better when it was called Species.

Sherlock Holmes

Directed by Guy Ritchie.
2009. Rated PG-13, 128 minutes.
Cast:
Robert Downey Jr.
Jude Law
Rachel McAdams
Mark Strong
Eddie Marsan
Robert Maillet
Geraldine James
Kelly Reilly
William Houston

Plot: After being convicted of murder, Lord Blackwood (Strong) is executed. However, he apparently resurrects himself and threatens to take over the world. Super sleuth Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr), who captured Blackwood in the first place, attempts to solve the mystery of his rising and save the day.

The Good: First and foremost, it's fun. The action scenes are well done, with top notch special fx. Massive objects go flying through the air and they actually appear dangerous, not like the green-screen wizardry we know them to be. The fight scenes are fun, as well. They're excellently choreographed and, thanks to Sherlock's pre-fight analysis, a source of humor. There's also lots of other humor. Two hours whizzes by because we're having a blast.

The Bad: It's so busy dazzling us with high-energy sequences, it never really shows us the secrets to the big mystery. Instead, Holmes just explains it all during a last minute monologue. I suppose that's to make him appear all the more brilliant, but I prefer to learn it as the hero does, not wait to be told just before the credits roll. Holmes himself is a bit of a disappointment, also. I've heard this version might be the closest to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original literary interpretation of the character. Unfortunately, it's also very close to the lead actor's portrayal of a very recent character. Holmes feels like Tony Stark of the Iron Man movies, only with a British accent. He's brilliant, narcissistic, arrogant, self destructive and an alcoholic wise-ass. See?

The Ugly: Don't they know midget is a politically incorrect word.

Recommendation: This is a highly entertaining romp through 19th century London. It'll definitely work for popcorn movie night. Yes, it's only popcorn fluff. Still, it's good popcorn fluff.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Star Trek (2009)

The Hangover

Directed by Todd Phillips.
2009. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Bradley Cooper
Ed Helms
Zach Galifianakis
Justin Bartha
Ken Jeong
Mike Tyson
Heather Graham
Sasha Barrese
Mike Epps

Plot: Doug's (Bartha) buddies take him to Las Vegas for his proverbial last night of freedom before getting married. AFter a wild night of which no one can remember a thing, Doug has turned up missing and the boys scour the capital of sin trying to find him.

The Good: Yes, our heroes are stupid. However, they're stupid in a way that's not at all unlike many of us when we've over-indulged the night before and try to piece together how shamefully we behaved. Years later, we can laugh at ourselves or if it happened to someone else we can laugh at them, immediately. Well, here its happened to someone else. Two other elements heighten both our amusement and the stakes. First, no one in group remembers anything at all from what was obviously a "good" night (the boys awake to find a live chicken, a baby and a full grown tiger in their hotel suite). Second, the groom-to-be is nowhere to be found. This easily sets up our heroes to go numerous places, trying to retrace their steps. The movie exploits this well and keeps us laughing. On top of that, just when we may be getting a little bored with the boys, we're introduced to a character that gets us cracking up all over again. Heather Graham (playing stripper Jade), Ken Jeong (Mr. Chow) and surprisingly enough, Mike Tyson (himself) all handle their roles perfectly.

The Bad: I was kinda hoping for flashbacks as the boys uncovered each piece of the prior night's mystery. These may have lengthened the movie quite a bit but may have also added to the hijinks and shenanigans, making it even funnier. We get it once in the form of security footage but I'm greedy and wanted more. I'm also on the fence about the ladies left at home. Should they have had some sort of bachelorette bash and gotten into their own bit of trouble? I'm not sure if I think that would've helped or finally pushed it too far over the top.

The Ugly: What happens to Stu's tooth. Ouch!

Recommendation: This is definitely "a guy thing." I found it thoroughly entertaining, and laughed all the way through. My wife, on the other hand, was only mildly amused. More than that I got the feeling most women would react this way. That said, though it is raunchy, its not so raunchy it will totally disgust them, usually. So guys, if you're just going to watch alone or with the fellas, have at it. If its your turn to pick the flick for movie night with your gal, proceed with caution. Think back to how she felt about The 40 Year Old Virgin or maybe Superbad or I Love You, Man and decide accordingly.

MY SCORE: 9/10

The Killing

Directed by Stanley Kubrick.
1956. Not Rated, 89 minutes.
Cast:
Sterling Hayden
Elisha Cook Jr.
Marie Windsor
Vince Edwards
Ted de Corsia
Jay C. Flippen
Joe Sawyer
Colleen Gray

Fresh out of prison after a five year bid, Johnny (Hayden) very quickly tries to bring a master plan together. He and a couple guys who work there are going to rob the local racetrack right when its at its busiest. Also involved are a dirty cop and a couple random thugs Johnny from his time on the inside.

Aside from Johnny and the two hoods, the others aren’t really crooks but have been driven into criminal behavior by circumstance. The cop is in deep to a bookie and another guy has a sickly wife he desperately wants to take care of. The last guy, George (Cook Jr) is the one we focus on most. He’s married to Sherry (Windsor), a woman out of his league. He earned her hand based on the promise he was going to strike it rich. Five years later, her every word to him is a reminder he hasn’t and she can’t stand it any longer. He correctly suspects her of having an affair but lacks the spine to call her on it. Instead, he merely pleads with her not to “do anything stupid” while he’s out meeting with the boys. He also does something else that proves to be detrimental to the heist, but I’ve already said too much.

Written and directed by the legendary Stanley Kubrick, The Killing is a fascinating, yet rigid heist movie. The crime and the various subplots unfold nicely. The whole thing comes to a head with a “wow” ending. The rigidity comes from the fact that it’s shoe-horned into an hour and a half. Honestly, there could be an hour more to this movie. Instead of being shown everything, half the movie is read to us off the page by a narrator. He’s not exactly reciting beautiful poetry, either. We’re talking stodgy prose of the “At 3:32 PM, Johnny arrived at the hotel” variety.

Its flaws are the reason this is a movie I could actually like to see remade. The story is already excellent, yet there is much room for growth. The characters could be given more room to flourish and/or fail. As it is, it works fine. It’s even better than fine and hailed by some as a classic. I’m greedy. I want more.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

The Lovely Bones

Directed by Peter Jackson.
2009. Rated PG-13, 136 minutes.
Cast:
Saoirse Ronan
Stanley Tucci
Mark Wahlberg
Rachel Weisz
Susan Sarandon
Michael Imperioli
Rose McIver
Reese Ritchie
Carolyn Dando
Nikki SooHoo
Christian Thomas Ashdale

Susie (Ronan) is your everyday, boy-crazy 14 year old in 1973. Well, we think she is. However, we very quickly discover she’s already been murdered. She even tells us that Mr. Harvey (Tucci) is her killer. Since we get all this information at the beginning of the picture, we know this is no ordinary murder mystery. But there is mystery. The obvious question becomes will Mr. Harvey be caught? There are other questions to be answered, as well. Mainly, how does Susie’s death affect her family. That aspect is explored in-depth. We can see how each person copes, or doesn’t cope with the situation. This includes Susie, who continually narrates to us from the other side while trying to find her way to Heaven.

Speaking of narration, I’ve never been a huge fan of it in movies. I freely admit if it is done right, it’s a great asset to a film. Here, it’s done right. The key is Susie rarely, if ever, crosses the line of giving us too much information. More importantly, she steers clear of simply recapping what we just saw or telling us what we’re about to see, for the most part. Essentially, she thinks out loud so that we see her perspective changing as we move along.

Playing the role of Susie, Ronan does an excellent job. Even though she spills the beans on the major details early, her performance conveys the idea there is much still to be discovered. As she, and we, come upon these revelations she is appropriately amazed and dismayed. While Ronan is good, there are two other performances that are simply perfect. The one you may know about is Stanley Tucci’s Oscar nominated portrayal of our villain, Mr. Harvey. It’s an amazing piece of work. Helpfully, it is a very well written character. He’s downright gentlemanly in his approach to most things. If we didn’t know any better, we’d think he was just some non-descript fellow who lives in the neighborhood, the scariest kind of boogeyman. The other great performance has flown under the radar. Susan Sarandon as the chain-smoking, and chain-drinking grandmother is absolutely fabulous. Her drunken wisdom and lack of domestic capabilities add both levity and comic relief. Sarandon strikes the perfect balance. In the process, she becomes the linchpin that keeps the family and potentially the movie from spiraling completely out of control.

There are times when the movie does indeed seem to take leave of its faculties. Most of these occur when the focus is on Samantha’s excursions in the afterlife. These portions of the film try to wow us with exoticvisuals. Instead, it takes what’s already a far-fetched premise and pushes it to the brink of total inaccessibility. There is also her constant lament of not having had a first kiss while alive. While that’s understandable from a teenage girl, the way this particular issue is resolved is a bizarre piece of b-movie madness that threatens to sink the movie. The same goes for her sister’s lame-brained effort at heroism that miraculously turns out far better, far easier than it should. Those issues aside, TLB is an excellent watch that intrigues us at almost every turn. It makes us empathize with Susie’s family. Eventually, we feel as if we lost a loved one. And though it’s not a horror film, it frightens us just enough to keep us on the edges of our seats.

MY SCORE: 8/10