Over a Candle

I was surprised when I saw that Yahoo! TM users had given George Clooeny’s new film, The American, a D+ as an average grade. I guess I shouldn’t be… There are few Yahoo! TM users I’ve seen that I would trust to recommend movies to me, but still… Why had the critics given it relatively high marks, while the users didn’t?

After seeing the film, I think I understand. If you walk into this movie thinking it is going to be in the same genre as The Bourne Identity or some such, you are going to be seriously disappointed. Yes, Clooney’s character is an assassin who has to avoid dangerous people after him. But this isn’t an action film.

This is really a rather quiet character film, masquerading as a thriller. Clooney’s assassin has a situation go horribly wrong and escapes to Italy to avoid the fall out. While there, he finds himself on a new job, but he isn’t sure he wants any more jobs.

Clooney is the only identifiably American cast member. The rest of the players here do a wonderful job supporting his superb performance. This film is really about Clooney’s character, and he has the skill to carry the proceedings.

I liked The American. It is a quiet film, a study of a man who isn’t sure he wants the life he’s chosen any more. It isn’t interested in his history, who his enemies are, or why they are after him. They simply represent everything about his life he wants to get away from. Clooney has few lines, but conveys so much with his expressions, his body language. There is much to infer, and much to enjoy.

The film does seem rather slow and plodding at times, but at the end, it seems right. We see enough to feel something for this man, even though we can’t even be certain he’s a good guy. It is satisfying even while it leaves so much unexplored.

Frankly, I needed a break. I wanted some mindless fun, and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World seemed like just the thing. So after I made sure Ronni had read the description and agreed that it sounded like fun, we headed to the movies for the first time in a month.

The simplest way I can think of to describe this film is that this is what happens when the Nintendo generation makes a romantic comedy.

There are the obvious elements that suggest that: the animations that accompany dramatic elements, the bad guys turning to coins when they are defeated (which actually makes more sense to me than how all the beasts in Final Fantasy games seem to carry Gil), the music, the refusal to obey the laws of physics. The fantastic elements are obvious to anyone.

But there is also the more subtle, yet still bizarre, elements. The fact that Ramona seems to dig Scott, even though there is almost no reason for her to. The fact that Scott lives with Wallace, who is gay, and they sleep in the same bed, usually with Wallace’s boyfriend of the moment. In short, the plot makes very little sense.

Really, this is a video game made into a move. And it is wild and fun. Don’t expect too much by way of sensible plotting, and there is no reason not to let go and enjoy the ride.

In many ways, Wallace, played by Kieran Culkin, is my favorite character. He is wry, and funny, and is phased by almost nothing. Several other supporting characters are nearly equally likable, such as the drummer of Scott’s band, Kim. And the foul-mouthed, and work-a-holic Julie. Scott’s teen-aged ex, Knives. Even Scott’s sister, played by Anna Kendrick who was terrific in Up in the Air.

In fact, the only actor I didn’t care for was Michael Cera, who plays Scott. Cera has never struck me as a good actor, and I think he was an awful choice in this role. He’s not cute. He’s not likable. And it strains plausibility that any girl would be interested in him, much less the three beautiful women who like him in this film. I really liked the entire film except for Cera, and that’s too bad. Maybe others see something likable in his talent. In the past I have found him rather inoffensive, but here, he lessens the enjoyment of the film for me. Considering I was willing to suspend so much disbelief, I think it’s telling I couldn’t quite do so when it comes to Cera as the lead in the film.

Still, there is enough here to like, plenty of fun performances, and just so much kitsch, that it’s hard not to laugh and smile along. In the end, even my dislike of the lead performer wasn’t enough to ruin the film for me.

Christopher Nolan has a knack for making wonderfully engaging and rather dark films. Memento. Batman Begins. The Dark Knight. All these films were among the best films that came out in those respective years.

Inception belongs right up there with them. Nolan has crafted a tricky movie based on a tricky premise: people can go into your dreams to find your secrets. Despite the twists and turns, the dreams within dreams, the film manages to tell a coherent and comprehensible tale of espionage and deception.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, a corporate spy, stealing business secrets for whoever will pay for them. Cobb is hired to do the impossible: plant a thought inside someone’s head rather than steal one. He has to put a team together, and the action begins.

It’s hard to say much more without spoiling most of the fun here. The visuals are appealing. The effects are nifty, but unlike so many other films, the emphasis is on the story and the characters, not the CGI.

DiCaprio is superb here, as are his supporting cast members. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays his second. Ellen Page is the greenest member of the team, the new architect of the dreamscapes in which their plans unfold. Cillian Murphy is Robert Fischer, Jr., their target. All of them do a fine job, but the emphasis of the film is on Cobb, and DiCaprio has the chops to bring the depth to the character that he requires.

This is smart summer fare. Not too heavy, but definitely raises some fascinating questions. It made me wish I still taught Introduction to Philosophy on a regular basis; this film would be perfect for the class.

Ronni and I went to see the Swedish film The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo tonight. I had wanted to see the film since seeing the advertising for it a few weeks ago. Ronni told me that her mom really liked the film, too. I knew that the film was based on the book by Stieg Larsson, and I wanted to read the book before seeing the movie. However, there wasn’t time, and I wanted to see the movie in the theatre.

This thriller/mystery is a well-crafted tale of the depths of human depravity. The story unfolds slowly, giving the viewer a chance to get to know the characters and savor the building tension.

A disgraced journalist is hired to solve the forty-year-old murder of a girl. Her uncle continues to receive messages reminding him of her that he believes comes from her killer. He wants to try to solve the case before he dies, which is why he hires the journalist. The uncle suspects that the killer could be anyone in his extremely wealthy and powerful family.

The uncle had hired a security firm to do a background check on the journalist before approaching him, which leads us to the title character. She was the researcher who had done much work finding out about him, including hacking into his computer. She follows his work even after her research is completed and provides him with a clue to help him further his investigation. Eventually they begin working together to solve what becomes an increasingly horrifying mystery.

Both the story and the acting are superb. The title character, Lisbeth Salander (played by Noomi Rapace) is especially engaging. Rapace does such a good job playing her. Her character’s story is engaging and horrifying enough in itself, and she imbues the character with so much emotion in subtle ways.

This is a dark and disturbing movie. There are moments that, without being too graphic, are downright evil nonetheless. And some don’t even concern the murder itself. It is telling that, on IMDb, they list as an alternative English title Millennium: Part 1 – Men Who Hate Women.

And yet, as dark as the film gets, it is completely engaging. Just the right atmosphere, good acting, and interesting characters. If you like mysteries and thrillers at all, you should see this film.

Robin Hood is maybe my favorite legend, even more than King Arthur. To be a total D&D geek for a second, it’s probably that I’ve always liked Chaotic Good more than Lawful Good. What I’m getting at is that I was really looking forward to Ridley Scott’s film Robin Hood with Russell Crowe.

The last (serious) big screen treatment of this story was Kevin Costner’s absolutely rotten film. The only saving grace of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was that it gave Mel Brooks an excuse to make Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Needless to say I was looking forward to a director I love, and an actor I enjoy, bringing this character back to some semblance of respect.

This film is a valiant effort in that regard. Indeed, maybe my only problem with the film as a whole is the name: “Robin Hood.” Indeed, strip all the characters of their names, don’t talk about Nottingham, and you wouldn’t know this was a Robin Hood film at all. It’s a film about medieval political intrigue and war. The titular character is an outlaw for all of about thirty seconds. Maybe it should have been called Robin Hood: Origins.

As we left the theatre, Ronni asked me if I liked the film. And I was torn. After all, this is a good film. Crowe is good. William Hurt, as a royal advisor, is excellent (though he doesn’t get enough screen time). And Cate Blanchett is, as always, superb as Marion. Indeed, Blanchett is probably worth the price of admission on her own. Across the board, the casting was spot on, and the acting excellent.

During the lengthy set-up, we see the familiar band slowly come together. We are introduced to Marion, Robin, Little John, Will Scarlet, Friar Tuck, even the Sheriff, as well as Prince John. Everyone is here. And once we get to Nottingham, everyone disappears. The cast is assembled, and they have nothing to do. Robin and Marion slowly come to feel fondness for one another, but the Merry Men have ceased to be players in the proceedings. Even the Sheriff has nothing to do.

The bad guys are in London, or France (or both). The good guys? The good guys are, other barons in England. Robin finds out about his past and it leads him into the conflict.

Ronni said, afterwards, that even though she liked the film, she kept wondering when they were going to steal from the rich to give to the poor. And that is a fine question. (It does happen, in one scene. But that small, suggestive scene, was far too brief, and otherwise out of place in the grand themes the movie was playing on.)

This film wasn’t about the little guy’s struggle against the tyranny of the authoritarian society he lives in. (I will admit, they do try to make it about that when they reveal Robin’s past, but it seems contrived, and puts that aspect on such a grand scale that it threatens to turn Robin’s story into the American Revolution.)

As I said, this isn’t really a Robin Hood film. Had I walked into it with that knowledge, I think I would have been completely satisfied with the movie. As it is, I feel rather conflicted about this movie. I did like it. But I still don’t feel like I’ve gotten the Robin Hood movie I was hoping for.

I know it’s not a new song. But it struck me the other day as particularly appropriate…

I’m assuming that I don’t really need to explain it. I’ll just post the lyrics and let you imagine the little girl in the bee costume.

“No Rain” – Blind Melon

All I can say is that my life is pretty plain
I like watching the puddles gather rain
And all I can do is just pour some tea for two
And speak my point of view but it’s not sane
It’s not sane

I just want someone to say to me
I’ll always be there when you wake
You know I’d like to keep my cheeks dry today
So stay with me and I’ll have it made

And I don’t understand why I sleep all day
And I start to complain that there’s no rain
And all I can do is read a book to stay awake
And it rips my life away but it’s a great escape
Escape …

All I can say is that my life is pretty plain
You don’t like my point of view
You think that I’m insane
It’s not sane …

I just want someone to say to me
I’ll always be there when you wake
You know I’d like to keep my cheeks dry today
So stay with me and I’ll have it made

Ronni and I finally got to Iron Man 2. The movie is playing in the independent theatre in town (quite a coup for them), and we avoided the rush to see it on the only screen last weekend. But we caught the late matinee today.

It’s been too long since I saw the first film to say whether this one is just as good, but it certainly was fun. Director Jon Favreau and writer Justin Theroux seem to appreciate that what really works here are the characters. They could have given us nothing but actions sequences and special effects, but they wisely spent a good bit of time on showing us the characters.

Granted, there is plenty of action and lots of special effects, but Robert Downey, Jr. once again gets to shine out of the suit, too. He really is fantastic as Tony Stark. His humor really carries the film, and the fact that he uses it to cover some real concern lets him play Stark as more than simply a caricature.

Gwyneth Paltrow also is terrific as Pepper Pots. If anything, I wish we had gotten to see a bit more of her. She is clearly the only person who stands a chance of handling Stark, but everyone continues to underestimate her.

Samuel L. Jackson gets a bit more screen time as Nick Fury, and is clearly having a blast with the role. Scarlett Johansson had to have fun playing Natasha Romanoff (though they never actually call her Black Widow). She only gets one real opportunity to show off her action chops, but its a fun sequence. And Mickey Rourke chews scenes like no one else, but he’s fun as the movie’s obligatory bad guy, Ivan Vanko.

There are a lot of fun little moments here, even if the overall plot is rather mundane. The story isn’t spectacular, but it’s serviceable and gives us a chance to see these fine actors have a good bit of fun and take us along for the ride.

Also, without spoiling anything, they are continuing to build toward the Avengers film, so be sure to stick around after the credits.

* Betty White, after acknowledging Facebook’s role in getting her on SNL, calling Facebook a giant waste of time. (And her confession that, while she didn’t have Facebook growing up, they did have poking.)

* Betty White sharing her “Dusty Muffin” with the girls on Delicious Dish.

* MacGruber proposing to his grandmother (played by Betty White).

* Really?! with Seth, Amy, and Tina

* Wizard of ASS!

* CSI: Sarasota

* Happy Mother’s Day, Mother-F***ers

* Ah, “ascertain.” That used to be my stripper name!

Seriously, if you missed tonight’s Saturday Night Live with Betty White, you should definitely find it somewhere online and watch it. Who would guess than an 88 year old would swear so much?

Tonight, Ronni decided to relive her youth, and asked me along for the ride. In other words, we went to see The Runaways, a film about the 70s band formed by Joan Jett and Sandy West and that featured Cherie Currie and Lita Ford.

If you are looking for a film that captures the 70s, this is probably the one for you. The clothing, the hair, the look and feel of the clubs… I have it on good authority that it was all captured perfectly. (It looked right to me, but I was nine at the end of the seventies.)

The film follows the forming of the band, their rise to fame, and their eventual break-up. As a result, there is a lot of ground to cover in under two hours. Despite this, the film is largely successful at telling its story in a rather entertaining fashion.

The second half of the film seems a bit more effective than the first half. During the first half, I kept thinking everything seemed too easy. Joan wants to start a band and approaches a producer about it. Before you know it, she has a band, and a manager getting them gigs.

The manager tells us, repeatedly, that the Rock scene is a boys club. There are two scenes – one of a house party where some of the guests heckle, but most of them seem to be into the music, and one a confrontation between Joan and whoever they are supposed to be opening for – that depict the difficulty the band has of being accepted. But other than those two scenes, we don’t really see the struggle the band had to win over an audience. That is really a shame since it is an important element of the Runaways story.

But that aside, seeing Currie’s and Jett’s rise and fall, and Currie’s eventual decision to leave, was fascinating. This is really a good film for what it does show about the band and its struggles. I just wanted more. Maybe less Fowley (the producer) and more about the band itself. Indeed, it seems odd that we don’t see more about Lita Ford.

Kristen Stewart really plays Joan Jett well. She looks like her, and imbues the character with the kind of fearless confidence that I’ve always associated with Joan Jett. Dakota Fanning also does a terrific job with Cherie Currie.

Despite wanting a few tweaks in the script, and the associated imperfections, this really is a good movie. Almost makes me wish I had been a little older in the seventies. Almost.

It’s the terror of knowing
What this world is about
Watching some good friends
Scream “Let me out!”

- “Under Pressure” Queen with David Bowie

Sometimes a song just says it better than anything you can come up with.

It’s even just hard to put it into words without simply quoting the song over and over again.

“the terror of knowing what this world is about”

What more needs be said? Either you know what the world is about, and then there is no need to explain the terror. Or you don’t know, and telling you would be selfish and mean.

“love dares you to change our way of caring about ourselves”

When everything seems so bleak, so terrible, how do we remember love’s dare? When the pressure builds, and we want to join the chorus screaming “let me out!” can we find a way to care about ourselves?

How?