Do we get wiser when we get older? (Review of "Greenberg")

We're all getting older. It's an inevitable, and arguably tragic part of life. Like it or not, the rebellious youth we start off life being will eventually turn into a more softened individual; perhaps married, perhaps popping out a few kids here and there, perhaps paying a mortgage. We're all victims of this.

Even filmmakers have to grow up. In his nascent days, Kevin Smith told the tales of the angry, young man, such as "Clerks" and "Chasing Amy," and then, went on to apply a more mature tone in his later work, like "Jersey Girl" and "Clerks II." Although "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" was a bit of a throwback to his earlier films, "Cop Out" reinforced this older sensibility. Richard Linklater followed-up his look at carefree romance, "Before Sunrise," with "Before Sunset," which featured the same characters, but their naiveté was replaced with mid-life crises.

Noah Baumbach's debut, 1995's "Kicking and Screaming," was a witty, and fresh look at post-grads who refuse to move on from their golden college years. Similar to the previously mentioned works, "Screaming" represented the twentysomething generation, the overeducated drifters. It immediately was drafted into the Generation X ranks, despite Baumbach's discomfort with that label.

However, starting with "The Squid and the Whale", Baumbach focused his attention elsewhere, developing a more mature sense of storytelling. Instead of witty twentysomethings, his characters were a self-destructive family, dealing with the parents' divorce. His next effort, "Margot at the Wedding," continued this theme.

"Greenberg", his latest film, is actually, in a lot of ways, is a meeting of his younger and older sensibilities. This is encapsulated in the two leads; Florence Marr, a twenty-seven year old assistant, and Roger Greenberg, a forty-year old failed musician. Their contrast in life experience is apparent in the majority of their dialogue.

Baumbach has never been one to force the audience to like his characters. He does something much riskier: he presents them as real people. Roger is an embittered, neurotic individual, destined to destroy anyone's attempt at reaching out to him. Florence is flawed as well, making one of the biggest mistakes of her life in the first five minutes of the film.

Ben Stiller, known for his broader work, is able to turn in a nuanced, honest performance, his best since his role in Wes Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums." Like Jeff Bridges in "The Squid and The Whale", he understands not only the dramatic aspects of the character, but the humor as well, which could be an oversight made by another actor.

Greta Gerwig is one of the most natural performers to grace the screen. You never once question the reality she presents. Florence is the most developed of the characters Gerwig has portrayed, or at least, it feels as such. Perhaps, it's because it's her most featured role. Regardless, it seems that "Greenberg" will be a great launching pad for Gerwig, and more people will be aware of her immense talent.

Unlike his character, Roger Greenberg, Baumbach has proven that growing older isn't necessarily a burden. At the very least, you can make good movies.

Hardly a "Cop Out"

Re-inventing yourself in the middle of your career is surely an audacious move, especially if you're generally prone to get a decent reception from critics and audiences by staying within your boundaries. Whether or not it actually works out is subective, and pointless to even debate (unless financially speaking, which could be argued. But regardless). But it's quite a commendable feat, one would have to admit, to try something new late in your career.

After his last film, "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," recieved an underwhelming box-office return, filmmaker Kevin Smith had a bit of a mid-life crisis. Although hardly a ticket-led director, he felt that the film should have earned more, and was compromised by a lackluster marketing campaign. However, this would wound up leading to a much bigger revelation: that Smith had lost interest in telling the stories that had defined himself as a director, the tales that helped crusade the pop-culture junkie slacker generation. What would Smith do, having lost this drive?

The answer came to him by way of WB President Jeff Robinov, who, having seen ZAMMAP, sent Smith the script for "Cop Out" (then titled, "A Couple of Dicks.) Smith had largely been disinterested in realizing someone else's script, feeling himself to not be a capable visual filmmaker, simply just a writer who shoots his screenplays. But, after the ZAMMAP fallout, he had a change of heart, and signed on to direct the film.

The film is an unapologetic love letter to the '80s buddy cop comedy genre, and features many of the classic beats of that type of film, such as a rival detective team, damsel in distress, drugs, etc. But with a film like this, you can't simply just admire it at an originality standpoint; Any enjoyment you get will come from the EXECUTION. And in that regard, I believe Smith has succeeded considerably.

Part of directing is knowing how to cast right, and Smith was able to assemble an impressive line-up of actors. There is, of course, Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan, who play off of each other like a seasoned comedy team; Morgan, in particular, is able to show what else he's capable of than what he is offered on "30 Rock." Kevin Pollak, someone who is never cast as much as he needs to be, plays a great sardonic detective, hoping to poke holes in Willis and Morgan's boat. Adam Brody appears as his inferior, following up on his great performance in last year's "Jennifer's Body." Guillermo Diaz portrays an absolutely insane, over-the-top gangster, who has a sometimes peculiar obsession with baseball. And, finally, Sean William Scott essays the role of one of the most idiosyncratic thieves ever seen on cinema, and hits every comedic note beautifully.

Speaking of beauty, Smith has stepped up his visual game quite a bit. There are several dolly moves and pans; always wisely utilized, and helps a largely vernacular film pop. Perhaps with this film, if nothing else, will prove to naysayers that Smith is a credible visual director, and maybe to himself as well.

Yes, this review is coming from a Kevin Smith fan. However, I had my doubts about the film, fearing that it'd be just a vulgarfest, with none of the wit presented in Smith's previous work. And whilst it's not a groundbreaking masterpiece, ultimately, that wasn't the goal. It's supposed to entertain, which is the primal goal of every film. And it's a genuinely entertaining movie.

AJP.

A Look At: (500) Days of Summer

The subject of love as seen in cinema is a tricky beast. It can be interpreted as being manufactured and having no basis in our reality, or overly cynical, which, in a way, is contradictory to love itself. So what is the best solution? What should filmmakers do in order to properly and creatively portray this subject on film?

Thankfully, Marc Webb and co. did not have to worry about this problem with (500) Days of Summer, because, as the narrator clearly states, it's not a love story.

Instead, the film is about misconstrued expectations, the falsehood of memories, and self-happiness.

These themes are represented in the characters Tom and Summer. Tom is a cat who sincerely believes in the "one," having misinterpreted the ending of "The Graduate." Appropriately, he works for a greeting card company. There, he meets Summer Finn, whom he designates as being his one, true love.

Summer, however, is a more complex beast than Tom is initially lead to believe. Their tumultuous relationship causes Tom's behavior, job, and views on life to go completely haywire.

What's truly remarkable about this film is not the outrageous laughs it receives, but the utter, brutal honesty that it offers. The characters in the film are real people, and they behave, and feel just like real people. And despite the idiosyncratic humor, the tone of the film is generally very realistic, a sharp contrast to the cheesy, routine studio pictures of this nature.

One of the most noteworthy and talked about aspects of this film is its peculiar structure. It goes back and forth during the 500 days of their relationship. Seemingly random, it actually helps the audience see Tom's viewpoint, and to be by his side throughout the film.

Portraying Tom is Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who has become a sort of indie king. Tom's a bit of an everyman, which is not the easiest thing to pull off. We get to see all of the colors of the rainbow with his character, from his happy post-coital dance to his drunken despair. Levitt plays it beautifully, never missing a beat.

Deschanel, however, might have the toughest part to portray. Summer could easily be a one-dimensional bitch, simply created to drive the story. However, there are many different shades to her character. Her individuality, blunt honesty, and unorthodox sense of humor. Anyone could play the perfect dream girl. Deschanel does one better: she plays an actual girl.

"500 Days" is, for my money, the be-all end-all look at twentysomething love. A valentine to the maturity that comes out of broken relationships.

When gold loses its luster.

Award shows intend to honor popular, successful films and bring attention to artier, more difficult to market pieces of work. Unfortunately, this is a lose-lose situation, as one seems like pointing out the obvious, and other seems to choose something that isn't well-known. The 2010 Golden Globes, hosted by Ricky Gervais, failed to select any risky nominees, and instead went the easy, and predictable choices.

One of the biggest examples of this was James Cameron winning Best Director for "Avatar." Now, "Avatar" is a wonderful film, truly. A total and veritable game-changer. But game-changer or not, Cameron didn't earn it as much, I think. He hadn't made a picture for twelve years, and when he does, we throw the awards at him, instead of honoring someone like Tarantino, my pick, who had made three movies since he was nominated, four if you are under the "Kill Bill Vol 1&2 are separate movies" party.

An another obvious choice was Christoph Waltz' Best Supporting Actor win for "Inglourious Basterds." However, this was clearly the best choice. Waltz gave easily one of the most memorable performances this past DECADE, let alone year. And none of his fellow nominees even came close to matching the acclaim he received. Hopefully, this will mean he is a shoe-in for the Oscar.

I also think it's time that Pixar not have a monopoly on the animated film category. I mean, seriously, they might has well have an award waiting for them each year. "Up" was one of my favorite films of the year, don't get me wrong. But in terms of the achievement in the animation world, it seems like "Coraline" or "Fantastic Mr. Fox" were more deserving. Their handmade, stop-motion approach is a wonderful, refreshing change from the constant dominance that CG has on the genre.

As a contrast to the state of obviousness mentioned above, a genuinely surprising win was Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner's Screenplay win for "Up in the Air," considering Tarantino was nominated, but well earned, since the film featured the most realistic dialog in some time, along with "Basterds." Although one wonders how much of Turner's work is featured in the film, and if not much, why he might not deserve the win. Regardless, a great choice.

Although some good choices were made here and there during the Globes, it's safe to say that they lost a bit of their luster this year.
AJP.

Favorite films of '09

While I'm not one for being a conformist, there are certain traditons amongst bloggers, film critics, or film geeks in general. One of those is the "Best of '09" lists, which I'm sure, by now, you're all sick of seeing. But allow me to pipe in with my two cents.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: There is still a few films I have yet to see that possibly will make an appearance on this list once I do see them, so consider this blog a work-in-progress. The films I have yet to see are:
"The Hurt Locker."
"Where the Wild Things Are.."
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"Moon."
"Me and Orson Welles."
"The Box."
"Taking Woodstock."
"Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus."

And now, without further ado, my favorite films of the year...

1. Up in the Air
2. Up
3. Inglourious Basterds
4. Funny People
5. (500) Days of Summer
6. Avatar
7. Star Trek
8. Coraline
9. District 9
10. Jennifer's Body
11. Precious

Honorable Mentions :
The Hangover
Orphan
Pirate Radio
Sherlock Holmes

Winter begins, and finally, the good movies are starting to come out.

Generally speaking, the winter season is a treasure trove of great films. Unlike the summer season, which mainly consists of brainless popcorn flicks, winter provides a more intellectual affair, although some blockbuster films squeeze in during the holidays. For any film geek, this is the time to get out and go to the theaters.

I have seen three films this winter season so far: Lee Daniels' gripping drama, "Precious"; James Cameron's return to the big screen, "Avatar"; And Guy Ritchie's adrenaline-filled take on a legendary character, "Sherlock Holmes."

"Precious" may stand out as being the most depressing film of the bunch, no doubt due to comedian Mo'Nique's viciously sublime performance as the abusive mother of protagonist Precious Jones. It's hard to even remember her comedic work when watching the film, so capable she is doing serious, dramatic work. With gorgeously gritty cinematography, Daniels beautifully helms Precious' struggle to take control of her life, and sever ties with her destructive family. "Precious" is not only an achievement for an independent film, but for a film, in general.

3D has come back from its dormant state in recent years, and is now nearly included in every animated film that comes out. However, I sincerely doubt they use it as effectively as Cameron uses it in "Avatar." After years of hype, Cameron has come out from his own dormant state to create a bold, and powerful epic that completely re-writes the rules of modern filmmaking. From the first moment, Cameron utilizes 3d as it should be used: as a storytelling device. Not a cheap, last-minute addition. He also uses the story as a commentary on human behavior; how we react to new races, new lands. However, Cameron doesn't force-feed us the message. You can go into the film and simply enjoy the tremendous visuals. And that makes the mark of a great film, where you can enjoy it on many different levels.

There are hundreds of interpretations of the character, Sherlock Holmes, that are featured in novels, films, and television. Some stay close to the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, others stray very far. It seems that Guy Ritchie's film, starring Robert Downey Jr as the famous detective, would fall in between. While featuring a much more psychical Holmes and Watson than we are used to, the intellect and spirit of the characters remain, as well as their difficult but enduring relationship. Nearly every aspect of the mythos is covered, including a brief appearance by Holme's archnemesis, Moriarty (cue sequel!). Despite whatever beefs you have have with Ritchie's interpretation, it is hard not to simply enjoy the film, especially considering the great acting talent on display here. There's the forementioned Downey Jr, Jude Law as Watson, Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood, Kelly Reilly as Mary Morstan, Eddie Marsan as Inspector Lestrade, and Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler.

All in all, the winter season has started out pretty well. Let's hope it continues to be a fun ride.

AJP.

The Saints Are Coming...But Maybe They Should Go Back

A recent development in the film industry is the power that DVD sales have. For instance, if a film had a lackluster theater box office, but has a strong DVD presence, you can bet on a sequel to be in the works.

One example of this, what is now considered a cult classic, is "The Boondock Saints," directed by Troy Duffy. Despite having an extremely limited release (it was only shown on five screens), it developed a tremendous following on DVD, due, in part, to an exclusive deal with Blockbuster Video, and would wind up making $50 million on the format. Considering Duffy's belligerent behavior during the making of the film (documented in the great film "Overnight, a must-see), it's surprising that the film would, eventually, be felt as a success. However, it did seem that Duffy's career in Hollywood was dead, due to the notoriety that "Overnight" gave him.

It seems like Duffy isn't done tellin' the story of the Saints just yet. But perhaps, that's not as great as it sounds.

"Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" is the follow-up to Duffy's debut, and features numerous actors from the first film, including Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, and Billy Connolly. It features the boys coming back from Ireland to settle the score with a crime lord who has ties with the Saints' past.

Their return to cinema, however, is marked by a constantly silly, and awkward eight-grade sense of humor, featured in an amateurish and insipid script.

What made the first one work was that although it had a tongue-in-cheek tone, the actors played their roles with sincerity, they believed every word they're saying, especially Flannery, and Reedus. None of that is featured in this film. The Saints constantly crack dick jokes, and try to emulate action hero stars.

And, the new additions to the cast do very little to help, most of all Julie Benz, who plays Eunice Bloom, an FBI agent sent to investigate the Saints reappearance. Basically, the character is a proxy for Willem Dafoe's Paul Smecker in the first installment, but Bloom isn't nearly as interesting or entertaining to watch. She is given a southern accent, which is hardly authentic, and sounds more like a broad caricature, something you'd see in a cartoon. In one scene, where she's explaining her analysis of a shoot-out, she imagines herself in the shoot-out, wearing a cowgirl outfit, and constantly whipping her gun. The scene is so awkwardly done, you are completely taken out of the moment, and wondering what the hell was Duffy thinking.

SPOILER - Smecker does, however, re-appear in the end, despite reports stating the contrary. His appearance gives the film a much-needed boost of fun, and we are given a taste of what could've been if Dafoe had been more of a featured player.

Besides Dafoe, there is some noteworthy acting work. Mainly, Peter Fonda's performance as The Roman, a mysterious, former colleague of Ill Duce. It was the one of the only times in the film where I truly was encapsulated by an actor's performance. Judd Nelson's role is brief, but entertaining as well.

If you're a fan of the first, it's definitely worth a watch. But don't bet on the Saints capturing lighting in a bottle again.

AJP.