Well, it is called "Smug Doug"...

Damn, I'm Good

One side note:

Below is a link to Tom O'Neil's "Gold Derby" column on the LA Times' "The Envelope."

Click it to read the article and then note the comments below it. The original article had an error which I pointed out, which changed the headline and text of the article...

I actually corrected the LA Times.

Smugness all around...

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/01/mpse-sounds-off.html#comments

Film Review

No Country for Old Men

I saw the film last night. I liked it a great deal...maybe more-so than There Will Be Blood - and you know I really liked that film. I don't necessarily know what it is about No Country for Old Men that makes it so absorbing. Yeah, it's essentially a "chase" movie, but there's something more to it. Maybe it's the way the Texas setting becomes its own character. Maybe it's the way that, while there's a lot of violence and death in the film, it doesn't feel gratuitous because almost every death hurts you a little. Maybe it's because you care about even the smallest of characters (not including henchmen/thugs). And maybe it's because you love-to-hate Javier Bardem's character.

The basic plot is this: Random drug deal goes wrong. Moss (Josh Brolin) finds the money. Anton Chigurh is a hit man/clean-up artist sent to get it back. Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) brings up the rear. Like I said...essentially a chase movie.

But, it's also a film with multiple themes. The most strident one of all is that it fleetingly shows us a "last stand" of honor, goodness and justice against all that is wrong with the world...evil, corruption, greed, violence, etc.

Each of the three characters above serves his purpose. Sheriff Bell is the good guy. Anton Chigurh is the (supremely) bad guy. Moss is the everyman with a dilemma created by his own actions/decisions. Josh Brolin actually said it best in an interview somewhere (paraphrasing): "it's like the three main characters are all one man split in 3." While I certainly agree with the notion, I must warn you that the Sheriff isn't exactly the type of Sheriff you might think he'd be. He's not your typical "movie cop." He's a good man, but disillusioned and disappointed by the lack of honor in modern (1980 is the time-frame of the film) crime. The Sheriff is the character least involved in the story, but is the character around whose emotions the film is based. He is the Old Man that this isn't a Country For.

Supporting characters played by Kelly MacDonald, Woody Harrelson, Tess Harper, and Stephen Root help round out the cast. Good performances by all.

One odd note: there's not much of a score to the film. I guess it re-enforces the bleakness of the setting. But, the odd thing is that when music does occur, it sounds like horror-movie-music. Weird.

I think it's a Best Picture lock, but I guess we'll see.

Film Review

There Will Be Blood

I'm a big fan of Paul Thomas Anderson. I've seen all of his films. Granted, he's only made five, but I've seen 'em!

One thing you can count on in a PT Anderson film is an element of surprise. Not shock. Not startling. Just something surprising. It might sneak up on you or come out of nowhere, but it's there. And it's always a revelation into the insight of the character or the scenario. Most often, it occurs near the end of the film...sometimes with a sense of irony, or merely a sense of humor. The ending of There Will Be Blood is one of those moments. The last line of dialogue ("I'm finished.") is so rich in multiple meanings, that it brings the film to its incredible conclusion with a true sense of feeling that you've just been on an adventure. It's probably the most "complete" film adventure I've been on in a long while.

The performances are marvelous. Daniel Day-Lewis is stunning. He carries the film on his shoulders, appearing in literally 99% of the scenes. A truly remarkable performance.

Paul Dano is an unsung hero. Not his character(s)...the actor. I commented to my friend Michael as we were talking after the film that I was so impressed by Dano's performance not just because of his talent, but because he stood toe-to-toe with Daniel Day-Lewis and blew me away. Kudos to him and to Mr. Anderson for him. Dano shoulda been nominated for an Oscar(r)...though I don't know who he would have replaced in the category. It's just "one of those years" for great supporting roles, I guess.

The Direction is close to sublime. The Cinematography is beautiful and uses light in a multitude of ways to convey so much. Bright sunshine, campfire light, twilight, moonlight, gas-wall-sconce light...you name it, it's there and brilliantly utilized.

The score is also a wonder. Too bad it was deemed ineligible by the Motion Picture Academy (because it contains some music that wasn't originally composed for the film, but for another project). Art Direction and Costume Design are appropriately period.

Ultimately, I think it's a fantastic film. It is long. Our 7:40pm showing let out at 10:30pm. But the ride is worth it. So, if you enjoyed PT Anderson's past work (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia & Punch-Drunk Love), see it. Even if you didn't - see this one. It's mesmerizing.

Film Review

Cloverfield

OK, I know it's awards season and I should be using my time to see potentially nominated (or actually nominated) films. But, I couldn't resist seeing Cloverfield. I loved the trailer and the hype surrounding the film was tangible. Plus, I wanted to see something "fun" and without awards hoopla.

Long story short: Something attacks Manhattan. People die. The end.

I liked it a lot.

The film is shot on hand-held cameras. More succinctly: A single hand-held camera. Think Blair Witch Project. The attacker (trying not to give too much away here, folks...) isn't seen in detail until the end of the movie. Its minions are super-scary, as well.

My friend Justin picked up the tickets for the group of us that went. When he purchased them, he was warned that the film "may cause motion sickness." Once the movie started, I understood why and actually had to look down or to the side of the screen for seconds at a time and kinda watch peripherally because the hand-held cam is almost always jostling/moving/focusing. It's damn effective! The movie is only around 90 minutes long, which is just as well. Any longer and it would have been overkill.

The deaths in the film aren't gory. And, most of the horror lies in what you're not seeing or in the confusion and chaos the characters go through.

I've read other blogs and several reviews. Some people said there was one big unanswered question: "Where did the attacker come from?" The question is answered! When you see the film, one of the last scenes is a moment at Coney Island. It shows a lovely panorama of the beach and the water, while people frolic. Watch the right side of the screen. Justin and I happened to see it while our friends, Michael and Lou, did not.

There's a LOT of tension, suspense and humor in the film. If you can stand the constantly-moving-camera, see it. It's worth the ride.

Another Note on a Film Review

Robinowitz says...

For a more, how shall I say it...strident review of Atonement, go to my review several posts down and read Robinowitz's comment on the film.

One of her gripes is that it's being compared to The English Patient in many advertisements. This is maddening because, in my opinion, the only things Atonement and The English Patient have in common is that both film titles begin with a vowel and end in "-ent."

Film Review

Atonement

I really don't know what to say.


I was looking forward to seeing this movie more than any other this awards season. I'm a sucker for a period epic. And James McEvoy is one of my all-time favorite actors. I think he's woefully underrated and brilliantly talented. I actually like Keira Knightley, as well. Combine those things with period costumes, fabulous art direction, the great buzz it's gotten and the overall experience of seeing it on the big screen and you'd think I'd be swooning.


In fact, Atonement is simply...ok.


It's beautifully shot.
The acting is great.
The score is wonderful...the use of the typewriter as a musical instrument is very cool.
I didn't really dislike any specific aspect of the film. All the pieces were perfect (or close to it). I just felt an overwhelming sense of "bleh" during and since my viewing of it.



I'll not give away any important plot points, but I'm gonna give a general overview. The first third of the film is very intimate. It takes place in one location and has a set number of characters. Then, through plot circumstances, McEvoy and Knightley (our romatic leads) are separated. The film then becomes a broad-sweeping story ignoring all but two (McEvoy & Knightley, again) of the characters we previously met. This middle third of the movie is what bugged me most, I think. The viewer has to "sit through" this section because the director wants you to somehow empathize with our leads - he wants you to feel their separation and longing. But I didn't. I was simply aggravated.


Suddenly, the final third brings back some of the characters from the first third...some of whom are played by different actors as they have aged from children to adults in that time. And the end of the film jumps to present-day and then a "fantasy sequence" of sorts. All the while, we're also getting certain scenes shown to us repeatedly from different characters' points of view, so you often wondered where you were, chronologically.


Don't get me wrong - the screenplay is actually pretty clever. I just never felt emotionally vested in any character in this film. Why? Here's an example: Yes, the several-minute-long-tracking-shot on the beach is impressive. But, it too took me out of the emotional track of the film...I kept thinking about how cool the shot was. I was constantly asking questions about the filmmaking as opposed to the film. And that's a problem.


Didn't love it, didn't hate it. It's just "ok."