The Descendants (2011) Review

Director/Writer: Alexander Payne
Genre: Drama/Comedy


2 Cookies

The Descendants should be so much better than it is. The critics gave it nearly flawless reviews, with Peter Travers of Rolling Stone calling it “damn near perfect,” and A.O. Scott of The New York Times raving that “to call The Descendants perfect would be a kind of insult, a betrayal of its commitment to, and celebration of, human imperfection. “ But I walked out feeling vastly underwhelmed. It’s been seven years since writer-director Alexander Payne made the instant classic American comedy Sideways, and for a filmmaker who seems to pride himself on capturing the human experience, he seems to have forgotten how to actually capture “human” moments in The Descendants.

George Clooney plays Matt King, a wealthy but miserable Hawaiian landowner. When his wife goes into a coma after an accident he must become the father to his daughters that he never was. His oldest daughter informs him that his wife was cheating on him before the accident, so Matt and his daughters embark on a journey to find the man who his wife was having an affair with.

The thing that bothered me the most about The Descendants is that all the characters are introduced through their flaws only so they can appear transformed later on, and their flaws never return. Also, there’s a subplot involving Matt’s decision about whether or not to sell a valuable piece of land that has a conclusion more predictable than Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries getting divorced. Plus, a supporting character named Sid, who is friends with Matt’s oldest daughter, is flat out annoying in every scene he’s in.

There are some beautiful shots of Hawaii and the acting is mostly very good, especially from Shailene Woodley, who plays Matt’s oldest daughter, but I just kept waiting for a moment that would explain what all the hype was about, and it never came. There are some good scenes but Alex Payne is unable to put together a convincing story that truly shows the human emotions he is trying to convey. 

Cookie Clip of the Week: LOTR: Return of the King (2003)

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, was released exactly eight years ago today. I feel like it was just yesterday.

The Muppets (2011) Review

Director: James Bobin
Writers: Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller
Genre: Comedy/Musical


3 Cookies

Jason Segel is funny. Muppets are funny too. So, when Segel writes and stars in the first theatrically released “Muppet” movie since 1999, the result is a funny movie. At its best moments The Muppets is comedic genius and at its worst points you’ll shrug your shoulders and wait for the next joke – for the most part, the James Bobin (Flight of the Conchords, Da Ali G Show) directed film settles into a smooth, pleasant rhythm of clever jokes, funny songs, and a ton of Muppet antics.

            The premise is simple enough. Gary (Segel), his girlfriend Mary (a wonderful Amy Adams), and his brother Walter travel to Los Angeles for a vacation where they discover that the Muppet Studios have become decrepit and run down. While visiting the old Muppet Studios, Walter, the world’s biggest Muppet fan, overhears the plan of an evil businessman, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), to destroy the Muppet Theater and drill for oil. “Maniacal laugh! Maniacal laugh! Maniacal laugh!” The only way the theater can be saved, is if $10 million dollars are raised. So Walter, Gary, and Mary go about the business of getting the gang of Muppets back together, starting with Kermit, to hold a huge Muppet show to raise the money.

            It’s almost impossible to not succumb, at least a little, to the charm of the Muppets. I’m sure there are naysayers out there who claim the Muppets are dumb and overly silly, but the haters simply don’t have a heart. C’mon! It’s the freaking Muppets! How can you not have a good time? Obviously this isn’t a groundbreaking and important masterpiece of cinema, but it’s a damn fun 98 minutes at the movies and a pretty great way to spend your $12 bucks. In fact, getting to see the Academy Award winning actor Chris Cooper perform a rap song is worth the price of admission alone.

            Jason Segel, who is slowly but surely becoming one of America’s funniest and most reliable actors (How I Met Your Mother, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I Love You Man), clearly has a major obsession with Muppets. I mean, it certainly wasn’t a coincidence that his Sarah Marshall character put on a Dracula rock opera with puppets. It’s always fun to watch a movie made by people who so obviously love what they are doing. Segel, who co-wrote the script with Nicholas Stoller, is always a riot when he’s onscreen but knows exactly the right points to pull back and let the Muppets handle the action. And the songs are almost all successful, especially the joyous “Life’s a Happy Song,” and my personal favorite, “Man or Muppet.”

            There are a ton of cameos in this film – everyone from Alan Arkin to Dave Grohl to Selena Gomez shows up, including Jack Black who actually has a pretty significant part. At times, I felt like there was cameo overload to the point where it was annoying, but by the end I didn’t mind it as much. I think the movie acknowledges it’s a movie a few too many times, like when a character turns to the camera and speaks directly to the audience or when someone says an important plot point and then explains that it was an important plot point. And the movie does get a little tedious at times, but always gets back on track quickly.

            It’s not perfect, but for a Muppet movie it’s pretty darn solid. “It’s time to play the music. It’s time to light the lights. It’s time to meet the Muppets, on the Muppet show tonight!”

The Artist (2011) Review

Director/Writer: Michael Hazanavicus
Genre: Comedy/Drama/Silent


4 cookies
Glass of milk - Michael Hazanavicus
Glass of milk - Jean Dujardin
Glass of milk - Berenice Bejo
Glass of milk - James Cromwell

Thank the movie Gods for The Artist! Or more specifically, thank writer/director Michel Hazanavicus (which is just as hard to say as it is to spell). Just when I thought there were no more original ideas left in the movie world, The Artist comes along and has completely restored my faith in cinema and reminded me why I love movies so much in the first place. It’s one of my favorite movies of the year so far, had me smiling from ear to ear (except when I was crying) for its entire 100 minute duration, and it is all black and white and silent.

What?!?! Did you just say it’s a black and white, silent film?

Why, yes I did. Somehow, in this crazy modern movie world of 3-D and motion capture technology and Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 making $139.5 million on opening weekend, Hazanavicus has crafted a silent, black and white film made to look like it’s from the late 1920s. Please! Please! Please! Do not let the fact that this movie is silent and in black and white deter you from going. The Artist is absolutely brilliant and entertaining as hell.

The story opens in 1927 at the opening night of a big silent film production  starring George Valentine (Jean Dujardin), one of Hollywood’s biggest stars. Immediately we are transported to a different time, a different world, as we watch an audience watch a silent film and completely love it. On the red carpet, after the premiere, Valentine is posing for pictures when a beautiful, young woman accidentally falls into his arms. The paparazzi go crazy and the next morning every newspaper has a picture of Valentine and the young women holding each other on the front page. The woman’s name is Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) and she uses her newly gained fame to get a small part in Valentine’s next movie. Her roles get bigger and bigger and eventually she becomes a major movie star herself as silent films are replaced by “talkies.” Meanwhile, Valentine fades into oblivion as silent films become irrelevant and Valentine completely loses his luster as a movie star.

And it’s all done completely visually. When dialogue is necessary, a title card flashes on screen with words and Hazanavicus does break the “no sound rule” on two occasions (very cleverly), but other than that, the story unfolds in the characters eyes and actions. This is an unabashed love letter to the magic of movies and it is clearly made by people who love cinema more than anything else in the world. This is a must see film for anyone who claims to be a movie fan.

The casting in The Artist is perfect and the acting is even better. Dujardin is remarkable, conveying such a wide array of emotions without saying a single word; he won Best Actor at Cannes and is a lock for an Oscar nomination. Bejo, who is married to Hazanavicus, could not have been better as Peppy Miller and John Goodman and James Cromwell also give incredible performances as a studio executive and Valentine’s loyal butler, Clifton, respectively. Hell, even Valentine’s lovable dog deserves a standing ovation as it/he gives the best animal performance of the year and turns out to be a major hero of the movie.

The gimmick of shooting a silent film in black and white never feels gimmicky and Hazanavicus pulls off the antiquated style with ease, even shooting the film in the boxy aspect ratio from before wide-screen. It’ll be a hard sell, and the fact that this movie even got made is almost a miracle in itself, but I’d be hard pressed to find anyone who walks out of this movie without a huge smile on his/her face recommending it to friends. We needed this movie – not only to remind us of cinema’s glorious past, but to give us hope for the future as well. 

My Week with Marilyn (2011) Review

Director: Simon Curtis
Writer: Adrian Hodges
Genre: Drama


1.5 Cookies
Glass of milk - Michelle Williams

            My Week With Marilyn is a period piece, set in England, with an Oscar nominated actor playing a famous historical figure. No, it’s not “The King’s Speech part 2,” but it’s pretty obvious that producer Harvey Weinstein is retracting old formulas, and hoping for similar results. Well, Michelle Williams gives a fantastic performance as Marilyn Monroe, just as Colin Firth gave a brilliant performance as King George VI, but as a whole My Week With Marilyn doesn’t even come close to The King’s Speech. In fact, My Week with Marilyn isn’t very good at all; dare I say it’s actually pretty bad.

            The main character of this film is actually not Marilyn, but Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), the son of a wealthy art historian who wants to go into the film industry. Colin lands a job as third assistant director on Laurence Oliver’s (Kenneth Branagh) new film The Prince and the Showgirl starring Marilyn Monroe. Soon, Colin gets to know Marilyn quite well, who has recently married Arthur Miller, and develops feelings for her. Marilyn, who is described as “the finest piece of ass on the planet,” by a reporter played by Toby Jones flirts with Colin and they end up skinny-dipping together in a lake, where they kiss.

            The movie is based on the memoirs of Colin Clark, who claims to have gotten to know the real woman behind the “character” of Marilyn Monroe. The amount of truth in Clark’s memoirs, and in the movie is questionable, but the main problem in the film is that while it strives to go deep into the mind of the real Marilyn Monroe, it stays disappointingly shallow. Williams does her best at making Marilyn feel real, but Adrian Hodges’ flimsy screenplay and Simon Curtis’ cursory direction leave the audience with no insight into who Marilyn really was other than that she was hot, a tease, selfish, and depressed.

            Eddie Redmayne gives a lackluster performance as Colin Clark and I was annoyed basically every time he was on screen. Kenneth Branagh, in a performance generating a considerable amount of Oscar buzz, is trying really hard to impersonate Laurence Oliver but in the end falls short. Judi Dench does what she can with a small, basically throwaway role as an actor in The Prince and the Showgirl. And Emma Watson is absolutely awful as a costume girl who Colin goes on a date with in a very poorly contrived and weakly executed subplot.

            While this may have been the most exciting week of Colin Clark’s life, it was really an inconsequential week for Marilyn Monroe and it’s disappointing that the acting of Michelle Williams is wasted in what I wish was a much larger and insightful story about who Marilyn really was. There are a few chuckles along the way and it breezes by easily enough at a mostly painless 99 minutes, but My Week With Marilyn misses the mark big time. Williams will almost certainly score an Oscar nomination for Best Female Actor, but she is really the only legitimate reason to spend your money on this film. 

Cookie Clip of the Week: Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Tower Heist (2011) Review

Director: Brett Ratner
Writers: Ted Griffin and Jeff Nathanson
Genre: Comedy/Action


1.5 Cookies

Eddy Murphy is back to his funny old ways in Brett Ratner’s latest hack-job Tower Heist, problem is he barely shows up for the first 30 minutes, and when he does, he isn’t given enough to do. The marketing for Tower Heist centered on the idea that Ben Stiller and Eddy Murphy are the two stars, but really Tea Leoni has just as much, if not more screen time than Murphy. I felt a little jipped, but maybe that’s how you’re supposed to feel at a Brett Ratner movie.

The plot involves Josh Kovacs (a less than stellar, Stiller), the building manager for an upscale New York City apartment complex called the “Tower.” When Josh and his staff at the Tower fall victim to a Ponzi scheme put on by one of the buildings richest residents, Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), Josh puts together a team to rob what he thinks is a safe in Shaw’s apartment and get even.

It’s a simple enough zeitgeist premise, with an above average cast, (Stiller, Murphy, Casey Affleck, Alda, Broderick, Leoni, Gabourey Sidibe, Michael Pena) that this should have, and could have been a very good comedy-caper flick. Unfortunately, Brett Ratner is, to put it bluntly, an awful director, and Tower Heist fizzles from the start. It’s so formulaic that it makes you cringe, and the jokes are far too few, and hit-and-miss, that there is not enough laughter to ignore the movie’s lack of a brain.

Granted, there are a few clever scenes, such as a scene where each member of the amateur team of thieves assembled by Stiller steals an item from different stores in a mall. Being a Ratner movie, of course one of the characters steals a bra and panties from a Victoria’s Secret. Michael Pena has a great time playing one of the dumber members of Stiller’s team of thieves and Gabourey Sidibe steals every scene she’s in as a Jamaican maid who can’t find a guy “that can handle her.”

Tower Heist always seems to be building to something big but it never fully delivers. Ratner, who was just fired as producer of the Academy Awards for using an anti-gay slur at a press conference, continues to make unintelligent films with big production designs that are not nearly as much fun as they should be. I’ve been debating over who I hate more, Brett Ratner or Michael Bay, and I think it may just be a tie.

The ending of Tower Heist feels rushed and unsatisfying which pretty much sums up the whole movie. It doesn’t make you want to rip your eyes out, and there have been worse movies made this year, but it’s forgettable fluff that should have at least been forgettable fun fluff.

Melancholia (2011) Review

Director: Lars Von Trier
Writer: Lars Von Trier
Genre: Drama/Science Fiction/Idiocy

1 Cookie

When Melancholia debuted at Cannes in May, the film made a big explosion, not only for what it is, but because its director Lars Von Trier said in a press conference that he is a Nazi and he understands Hitler. I think it’s important to separate the person from the artist, but in the case of Melancholia the artist is almost as horrendous as the person. The Cannes Film Festival kicked Von Trier out, the first time in history someone was expelled from Cannes, but his film became a tremendous success. I have never seen any of Von Trier’s previous work so I judged Melancholia strictly on its own merit, and frankly, I was not impressed.

            The film opens with a prologue of apocalyptic images, imaginatively shot   and foreshadowing the inevitable fate that will befall earth at the end of the movie. A giant planet called Melancholia is hurdling towards earth and if it hits, all life on earth will end. Von Trier chooses to show us earth’s destruction in the first 15 minutes, which takes away the suspense factor of wondering if Melancholia will actually hit earth, but clearly Von Trier isn’t concerned with suspense because he is telling a story about two sisters and how they deal with earth’s impending doom. I liked the prologue – the next two hours, not so much.

            The movie is told in two parts, each named after one of the two sisters, played by Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg (who don’t look anything like sisters). Dunst won the Best Actress award at Cannes but I think her performance is decent at best, with a lot of overacting and comatose staring. Gainsbourg out acts Dunst but is never really given a chance to shine because of Von Trier’s sloppy direction.

            Part one centers around Justine’s (Dunst) wedding party, put on by Claire (Gainsbourg) and her rich husband John (Kiefer Sutherland). The groom is Michael (Alexander Skarsgard), and Michael and Justine trounce into the party two hours late after being stuck in a limo. Claire is angry with Justine for being late to her own party, but once she arrives the bizarreness begins. It turns out that while Claire is the sane, levelheaded sister, Justine suffers from severe depression and is basically a nut job. In the span of the wedding party, Michael declares her love for Justine, Justine gets a job promotion, Justine leaves the party to pee on a golf course, Justine quits her job, has sex with another man, takes a bath, and finally Michael packs his bag and ends the marriage after one night. “What did you expect?” is all Justine can say. Almost nothing about the wedding scene makes any sense. Characters are not developed and the incredibly strange family dynamic is never really understood.

            After the torturous wedding party, comes part two, which involves Claire, her husband, her son, and Justine hanging out in a big house, acting depressed and waiting to see if the world will end or not. The audience is forced to wait with them, and the wait is long, tedious, and boring. Claire is scared about Melancholia, John tries to convince her the planet won’t hit earth, but Justine claims that “she knows things” and that “there is only life on earth, and not for long.” Eventually John kills himself when he realizes earth is doomed. Justine says mean things to her sister and Claire is sad. Claire’s son never seems to care that his dad is dead and that he is about to die as well. Finally, after what seems like an eternity of long, hand held shaky shots of the sisters looking depressed, and Kirsten Dunst lying naked in the woods for no apparent reason, Melancholia hits earth, there is an explosion, and the movie ends. Thank god.

            Like Terrence Malick’s film released earlier this year The Tree of Life, Von Trier’s Melancholia is an overlong, pretentious snooze fest that thinks it’s much more important and meaningful than it actually is. Malick and Von Trier are both directors with strong visions and audacious aspirations, but they both seem to have forgotten that form does not make a successful movie when there is no substance.

            I think hand held cameras can work marvelously – they don’t in Melancholia. Instead of giving the movie a real life feel, it simply makes the audience nauseous. Many critics have praised the films “beauty,” but all I saw was ugliness and some HD shots of a big lawn and horses. Richard Wagner’s operatic score repeats and repeats to the point where I almost wanted to cut my ears off upon hearing the same melodramatic tune being played over and over again. Maybe Von Trier realized the audience wouldn’t know what to feel unless he added an overdone, obnoxious musical score to accompany the overdone, obnoxious images onscreen.

            Melancholia is disjointed, incoherent, and unintentionally laughable. Von Trier may have an artistic vision, but he is certainly not a good storyteller, at least with this film. Some people will love it, some people will hate it, there will be many who don’t really know what to think. Hopefully the Academy will see Melancholia for the arrogant piece of trash that it is, and we won’t have to worry about anyone involved with it taking home golden statues. 

Just a little Woody

Paranormal Activity 3 Review (2011)

Directors: Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman

Writers: Christopher Landon and Oren Peli

Genre: Horror

2 cookies

Paranormal Activity 3 is scary. There’s no denying that. The jump-a-minute rating during PA3’s short 84 minute running time is off the charts. I watched this movie with my knees curled up to my chest, and my hands either over my eyes or in my mouth, since I was biting my nails basically the whole movie. For a Halloween horror movie, this is exactly what I was looking for; it’s almost like the candy you get during trick-r-treating – tastes sweet, makes you jumpy, and it’s mostly junk.

I went to see PA3 with two friends on the Saturday of the disastrous Halloweekend snowstorm and about 45 minutes into the movie, the theater’s power cut out and I was left to wonder how the movie would end. So the next day, since my home’s power was out and I was in the dark and freezing cold, I went with my brother to see the movie in its entirety. I was pretty bored seeing the first half again because I knew when all the popouts were coming, but once it got past the point of what I had already seen, I got back to being scared as hell right away. And the last 20 minutes are freaking scary, though they don’t really make sense.

You don’t really need to see the first two Paranormal’s to understand what’s going on in number 3, though I don’t know why you would want to see PA3 if you haven’t seen the first, second, or both. The story is a prequel to the previous two installments and takes place when the sisters, Katie and Kristie, who were the subjects of PA and PA2, were young girls, and their house becomes haunted. The gimmick of the Paranormal franchise is that the movies play out as if it was actually filmed in real life and the footage was found, in the tradition of The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield.

The man responsible for setting up the cameras around the house is Katie and Kristi’s stepdad, who wants to catch the strange occurrences happening in the house on tape. The movie gets repetitive, as the formula of the Paranormal scare method gets trite, but despite its unoriginality I was still scared. The best new idea from PA3 was setting up a camera on a moving fan that pans back and forth between two rooms so that tension builds as the camera moves and the audience is left waiting to see what the camera is missing. There will no doubt be a fourth installment of the series due to PA3’s box office success, but I’ve just about had it with this series as the repetition of the found footage gimmick is getting old really fast.

            There is little redeeming value to this movie besides being scared, so if all you want is be scared, you can’t go wrong with PA3. If you want anything else out of a movie, don’t see PA3, because it’s not really a good movie. And if you really want to be scared, rent the original Paranormal Activity and watch it alone, in a dark room.

Cookie Clip of the Week: The Shining (1980)

Halloween is just a few days away and there's nothing better than watching horror movies to get yourself in the Halloween spirit. I watched The Shining when I was 12 and I couldn't sleep for about a week. From Nicholson bouncing a tennis ball off the wall, to blood pouring out of the elevator, to the naked hot lady who turns into a dead zombie chick, The Shining is a true masterpiece of horror. Kubrick knows how to make 'em folks...

Like Crazy Review (2011)

Director: Drake Doremus

Writer: Drake Doremus

Genre: Romance/Drama

3 cookies

Glass of milk - Felicity Jones

There is an American guy and a British girl. They meet at college in Los Angeles. They fall in love (“we’re both young, hot, and hip. Yay!”). Dilemma: British girl has to go back to England because her visa expires, but she violates her visa and stays in Los Angeles because she’s so hopelessly in love with American guy. When British girl finally goes back to England, she is not allowed back into the U.S. because of her previous visa violation and thus American guy and British girl must face the challenges and pain of a long distance relationship.

The American guy is named Jacob, and is played excellently by Anton Yelchin, who you know from such masterworks (not) as Fright Night, Terminator Salvation, and Star Trek.  This is, by far, Yelchin’s best role yet. Anna, the British girl, is played by Felicity Jones, who you don’t know unless you’re a British television fan. Jones steals the movie. It’s impossible to take your eyes off her, as she demands your attention with a distinct screen presence that radiates in every scene. With the arrival of Elizabeth Olsen in the newly released Martha Marcy May Marlene and Felicity Jones in Like Crazy, it’s been an amazing couple of weeks in terms of talented young actresses emerging in their first starring roles. Like Crazy works because of the exceptional performances by Yelchin and Jones – they make the audience feel their joy during happy times, and feel their pain during the not-so-happy times (which there are a lot of).

The talented director Drake Doremus employs a very unique filmmaking style, where nearly all the dialogue in the movie is improvised by the actors, based off outlines written by Doremus.  When filming, Doremus would let scenes play out for as long as 15 minutes just letting the actors riff off each other, which helps gives the film a very unique feel. The improvisation plus the decision to shoot the film hand held, is no doubt an attempt by Doremus to give the film a strong sense of realism, though the hand held camera work feels gimmicky at times. I love “indie-style” cinematography more than anyone, but I felt like Doremus was trying too hard at times when he should have just been using a tripod.

I had super high expectations for this film. The buzz from Sundance was incredible (it won the Grand Jury prize), I thought the film’s trailer was one of the best trailers of the year, and I generally love indie romance movies. Some of my favorite films of all time are Garden State, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 500 Days of Summer, and Lost in Translation and I was expecting, perhaps unfairly, that Like Crazy would place itself in the ranks of films like those. Unfortunately, while it’s a very good movie, it doesn’t even come close to touching the classics of the “indie-romance” genre.

The main thing that keeps Like Crazy out of the great category is that the male protagonist, Jacob, is basically a jerk. It’s hard to root for a guy that doesn’t make any sacrifices for his relationship with Anna to work and completely manipulates another female character (Jennifer Lawrence), who utterly loves him, only to abandon her multiple times.  Also, without giving too much away, there are certain things about Jacob and Anna’s relationship that just don’t really make sense as the film progresses.

This movie has all the ingredients of a great love story but the final dish only comes out partially cooked. Still, the acting is amazing and you will feel real emotions during Like Crazy’s 90 minute duration. I loved the semi-ambiguous ending that leaves room for interpretation but still feels like the completion of the story, unlike the ending to Martha Marcy May Marlene. The “shower-scene” finale has no dialogue, yet somehow it says so much. The movie raises deep questions about the existence of love and the validity of the theory that every person has one true soul mate.

I think Like Crazy is definitely a movie worth seeing it just didn’t live up to my Mount Everest of self-imposed hype. If you’re feeling depressed about long distance relationships after seeing Like Crazy, which you probably will be, you should check out last year’s very underrated box office failure Going the Distance. This movie, starring Justin Long and Drew Barrymore, provides a much lighter take on the challenges of a long distance relationship, while still remaining truthful.

Cookie Clip of the Week: Zombieland (2009)

I love zombies. If you don't love zombies, then we probably aren't friends. It's a great time to be a zombie lover as The Walking Dead is back for season 2 on AMC and with Halloween approaching, zombie movies, as well as other horror movies, take center stage. When you mix zombies and Jesse Eisenberg you get one of the best zombie movies of all time...

The Green Review (2011)

Director: Steven Williford

Writer: Paul Marcarelli

Genre: Drama

2.5 Cookies

The Green is probably a movie you will never see. After playing at a large number of film festivals in 2011, the producers have decided to forgo a theatrical release and release it straight to Video on Demand, as well as other forums for home movie watching.  In fact, I hadn’t even ever heard of this movie before seeing it at the weekly independent film series that I attend (New York Film Critics Host Coming Attractions). It also has a terribly awful, ambiguous title, that is way too hard to find; when I searched “The Green” on IMBD, multiple movies came up before the one I was looking for, including The Green Lantern, The Green Mile, The Green Hornet, and Fried Green Tomatoes.

The subject matter of The Green is a tough sell in and of itself as the story centers around a gay relationship, with its focus on a gay man, which is difficult to market unless you get to have Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger on the poster. Starring the mostly unknown Jason Butler Harner and Cheyenne Jackson, The Green does not have the star power to make a movie about a gay man appeal to mainstream audiences, which is a shame because this is actually a surprisingly good movie with an important message.

Jason Butler Harner plays Michael, a teacher at a suburban Connecticut private school, who recently moved with his partner Daniel (Jackson) from New York City because Michael “wanted to see green,” (you guessed it, that’s why it’s called The Green). When we meet Michael he has already developed a close, but not inappropriate, relationship with a student named Jason, who is having a tough time at school due to bullying and a difficult home life. One night, after a school function, Michael sees Jason being bullied in a hallway and when Michael goes to help Jason, Jason’s mother’s homophobic boyfriend misconstrues Michael’s gesture of help for sexually inappropriate conduct. Everything spins out of control very quickly and it’s not long before Michael is forced to leave his job, has his house searched by police, and loses his reputation in town.

Eventually Michael hires a lawyer, who happens to be a lesbian to take on his case. Julia Ormond plays the lawyer and I think she gives the weakest performance in the film. Michael’s relationships with Daniel and other friends are endangered and an event from Michael’s past comes back to haunt him. The story is engaging throughout and there is a surprisingly intense climactic scene that I did not see coming at all.

First time director Steven Williford gets good performances from most of his cast, especially the leads, as Butler Harner and Jackson are terrific in their roles. Williford, who happens to be gay, also does a great job making the story feel universal, so that everyone can relate to Michael’s struggles, not only a gay audience. The film makes you think about certain prejudices you might have, and whether or not our society is where it should be in terms of gay acceptance. We are far from it, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the filmmakers as well. Even using the words “gay acceptance” is degrading, as a scene in the movie points out, because a gay couple shouldn’t have to be merely accepted or tolerated, they should be looked upon like any other couple.

It is evident that Williford is a first time director though, as certain scenes and shots in the film aren’t as strong as they could be. Certain moments are overdramatized when they should be downplayed, and moments that should be downplayed are overblown. For the most part Williford does a good job playing with the tone of the film, but there are moments when the tone and mood shifts unexpectedly when it shouldn’t. Particularly, a storm scene near the end, where Michael is forced to confront his fear of heights to fix a leaking roof feels melodramatic and cheesy.

The screenplay was written by Paul Marcarelli, who is famous for being the Verizon, “Can you hear me now?” guy. It’s a good script, with decently drawn characters, and while certain characters fall victim to cliché and stereotype, especially the homophobic antagonist of the film, for the most part it’s strong. And Williford does a pretty good job of taking Marcarelli’s words and putting them on screen.

It’s too bad more people won’t see The Green because it’s a good, albeit not great film, that could possibly teach people a thing or two about homophobia in modern America. The 90-minute film is entertaining, for the most part, and I think most people would be pleasantly surprised upon watching it. Now, I don’t know if I’ll remember anything about this film a month from now, but it’s certainly better than many of the movies that are released nationwide and gross millions of dollars (I’m looking at you Johnny English Reborn and The Three Musketeers, which both come out Friday and will no doubt be dreadful). 

The Ides of March Review (2011)

Director: George Clooney
Writers: George Clooney, Grant Heslov, & Beau Willimon
Genre: Political thriller/Drama


3.5 cookies
Glass of milk - The cast (specifically, Ryan Gosling)

Politics. Politics. Politics. You got to love politics. And when a story about politics is told with the craft and precision that George Clooney brings to the table, in his fourth film as a director, the result is a tightly packed, crisply plotted thriller of a film. While it never necessarily reaches the soaring heights of importance it could have, it is still tremendously entertaining, and one of the best and  best-acted films of the year.

Before I get to the plot, let me just say that The Ides of March is essentially an acting all star game. In the NBA, you have Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Nowitzki, and Durant. In The Ides of March, the starting lineup is Gosling, Clooney, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giametti, and Marissa Tomei, with Evan Rachel Wood and Jeffrey Wright coming off the bench. The cast is so good in this movie that it even gets distracting at points – it’s almost like each actor wants to hit the game winning shot.

In the end, while all the actors involved score in double digits, it’s Gosling who hits the buzzer beater. Already establishing 2011 as the best year of his career in the fantastic Crazy Stupid Love, and the gritty Drive, Gosling continues his winning streak, and cool streak, as the young, assistant  presidential campaign manager Stephen Myers.

The story tips off as Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) is in a fierce political battle to win the Ohio Democratic primary as it could be the key for him to get the Democratic nomination for President. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays his campaign manager, and Gosling plays Hoffman’s assistant, who firmly believes that Morris could actually bring positive change to America if elected President. But soon, things start to slip out of control as betrayal, sex, and corruption enter into the fray. The film is essentially a morality tale about how far people will go to get what they want, and that even the best of us can be corrupted. Gosling’s character is at the center of it all.

The liberal Clooney provides us with a darkly cynical view of America’s politics – it’ll be interesting to see how much he’s involved with campaigning during the 2012 election. If you want to feel good about the people running our country, this is not the movie for you. If you’re interested in the art of lying, The Ides of March is essentially a study on the subject.

The twists and turns are unpredictable and come quickly once the story gets going – you never know exactly who to root for because just when you think one thing, something will happen to make you think differently. There are no heroes in this movie, after all it’s about politics.

Now, this isn’t the masterpiece it may look like on the surface. With a lesser cast and a director not as skilled as Clooney, Ides could have easily come off as a schlocky political melodrama. Fortunately, the cast is stellar and Clooney is a solid filmmaker, so the movie works if you go in expecting an  intelligent and entertaining 100 minutes, that could spur a good conversation about American politics.

It’s fun, it’s smart, it’s satisfying – your money will be well spent. 

Martha Marcy May Marlene Review (2011)

Director: Sean Durkin

Writer: Sean Durkin

Genre: Thriller/Drama

3.5 cookies

Glass of milk - Elizabeth Olsen

I have the privilege of being able to attend an eight-week film series this fall, where I will see a new movie each week, before it is released in theaters. Plus, at the screenings, there is often a Q & A session after the film, with someone involved with the movie such as a director, writer, actor, etc. If anyone is interested, the series is called New York Film Critics Host Coming Attractions. For the first week of this film series I saw the remarkable Sundance Film Festival hit Martha Marcy May Marlene. The guests at the screening were director Sean Durkin, and actors Elizabeth Olsen and John Hawkes.

            You may not have heard about this movie yet, but oh you will. Opening in New York and Los Angeles on October 21, before it expands to a nationwide release, Martha Marcy May Marlene (say that three times fast) has already taken the indie film world by storm, and is set to wreck havoc on audiences across the country.

            Elizabeth Olsen, the younger sister of Mary-Kate and Ashley, plays Martha, in the kind of role that creates a star. Before long, Elizabeth Olsen will be the Olsen sister, as she gives a transcendent performance worthy of all the hype it's been getting, and should receive an Oscar nomination from the Academy.  Talk about a breakout role; this role will do double for Olsen what Juno did for Ellen Page.

            The story begins with Martha escaping, one morning, from an abusive cult in upstate New York to live with her estranged sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson), and her sister’s new husband, Ted (Hugh Dancy). As Martha attempts to re-assimilate to normal life, after two years in the cult, she is increasingly haunted by disturbing memories and behaves in strange and inappropriate ways. The film flashes back and forth between Martha’s time in the cult and the time after her escape, while the two timelines often merge together, creating a sense of paranoia and insanity, on the part of Martha.

            The film’s quadruple M title comes from the name Martha is given when she joins the cult, which is Marcy May. The fourth M, Marlene, is another name that all female members of the cult must use when dealing with the outside world. The man responsible for bestowing the ‘Marcy May’ title upon Martha is the cult’s eerily creepy and sinister, yet somehow inviting leader, Patrick. The great character actor, John Hawkes, who was nominated for an Oscar for last year’s Winter’s Bone gives a chilling performance as the demented cult leader. In one scene, he serenades the cult with a song called “Marcy’s Song,” and Durkin allows Hawkes to play the whole song through on his accoustic guitar, which gives the audience a perfect sense of what this character is like, and what Marcy means to him; Hawkes nails this scene.

            As Martha begins to act more and more strangely at home with her sister and brother-in-law, the flashbacks become increasingly disturbing, as we witness sexual and violent acts that Martha was forced to experience during her time in the cult. This is certainly not an easy film to watch, and you may find it necessary to turn your head from the screen at certain points. Don’t go to Martha expecting to walk out feeling like rainbows and lollipops; if a color could describe a movie, Martha would be black.

            That being said, I loved about ninety percent of this movie. Durkin has crafted a brilliant thriller that gets under your skin, and makes you watch actively – meaning, you have to do some thinking during this movie. There are even certain scenes that almost reach masterpiece quality. That’s why the ending is so frustrating.

(Spoiler Alert, kind of)

            There will be much discussed about the ending to Martha, and I don’t want to give too much away, but remember the ending to The Sopranos? The packed theater I was in gave a collective “Ahhhh!!!” as the screen went dark and I don’t think this “Ah,” was a good thing. I didn’t get why the movie had to end the way it did right after I saw it, and I still don’t get it why it ended the way it did, as I write this review three days later. An ending can either completely kill a movie or completely make it – in the case of Martha, the ending definitely didn’t help.

            After the Q & A session, I had the chance to go up to Durkin and I asked him why he chose the ending. His only response was, “Whatever questions the audience have, Martha has as well.” Maybe I’m just not smart enough, but I still don’t get the ending. It felt like a cop out.

            Regardless, Marthy Marcy May Marlene is a truly amazing movie and one that I highly recommend. And judge the ending for yourself – maybe I’m just stupid – I don’t think so though.

            Also, being able to meet the director, as well as Elizabeth Olsen (who’s only 22!) and John Hawkes was awesome. They were all really friendly and cool. In real life, Hawkes is not like his character at all, and Olsen is certainly no Martha, Marcy May, or Marlene. 

Cookie Clip of the Week: The Social Network (2010)

Possibly my favorite scene from my favorite movie of last year; Eduardo's dance is better than anything you'll see in the Footloose remake this weekend...

Pizza in the Movies

I recently got my first job as a pizza delivery guy for Sparkie's Pizza (give me a good tip, please). No, I didn't get this job because I was inspired by Jesse Eisenberg in 30 Minutes or Less (Well, I kinda did). Anyway, In honor of my newly achieved employment I've decided to take a look back at my two favorite moments from  the movies, dealing with pizza.

Home Alone (1990)

When I was 10, I thought this scene was the funniest thing ever.  Now I realize that Macaulay Culkin was actually a huge asshole. First of all, he only tips the delivery guy 20 cents! This poor delivery guy has to drive in the snow, days before Christmas, and all Culkin gives him is 20 measly cents! That's ridiculous, and plain wrong. Second, joking about shooting at the delivery guy is immoral and sick. After police and taxi drivers, pizza delivery is the third highest occupation where it is most likely you will get murdered on the job. For Culkin to joke about putting a pizza delivery guy in danger is deranged. Looking back on this scene now, I think that Culkin deserved to lose his family, and I wish the robbers won at the end, instead of this sick little kid having a happy ending.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)

"Learnin' about Cuba and havin' some food."

I don't think there is even a debate that this scene is the greatest pizza scene in the long and illustrious history of cinema. Who hasn't dreamed of having the bravado that Sean Penn's famous character Spicoli has here, to order a pizza to class? The pizza delivery guy in this scene is priceless; he seems to be having a classic 'my life sucks' moment as he drops in on a high school class to deliver a pizza in front of a bunch of giggling kids. Then, Spicoli's face as Mr. Hand, hands out the pizza to everyone is almost uneasy to look at, it's so funny. He seems to have an expression of horror, mixed with rage, with a tinge of sadness. Penn shouldn't have won his Oscar for Milk, he should have won it for Fast Times.

Cookie Clip of the Week: Wayne's World (1992)

In honor of the start of the NHL season...

50/50 (2011) Review

Director: Jonathan Levine
Writer: Will Reiser
Genre: Dramedy


4 cookies
Glass of milk - Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Glass of milk - Will Reiser

50/50 is a movie where the main character is diagnosed with cancer, forced to endure chemotherapy, has his girlfriend cheat on him, and eventually has to have life threatening surgery. It is also a movie where Seth Rogen gets to refer to a girl as a ‘C-word’ (which prompted the entire audience to clap and cheer), smoke and drink excessively, and make various attempts at getting laid. The genius of 50/50, written by cancer survivor Will Reiser and directed by Jonathan Levine (The Wackness), is how perfectly both sides of this film coincide. The title, 50/50, refers to the odds of survival that our protagonist, Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), faces when diagnosed with cancer but it could also be a reference to the two prevailing emotional reactions you will have during this film: 50 percent hilarious, 50 percent heartbreaking.

            The story, based off Reiser’s own experiences, begins when Adam is diagnosed with a rare form of cancer after seeing a doctor due to back pains. His hot but bitchy girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard) pretends to be supportive at first, but is in fact the complete opposite. His mother, (played brilliantly by Angelica Huston), completely freaks out, smothering Adam to the point where Adam doesn’t even want to return her calls. And his hospital assigned therapist (Anna Kendrick) is completely unprepared to deal with Adam’s problems, as he is only her third patient ever. This leaves Adam’s best friend Kyle, (Seth Rogen, essentially playing a version of himself), who supports Adam but often acts completely selfish using Adam’s cancer to score chicks for himself.

            But the characters all have much more depth than what we originally see, except for Adam’s girlfriend, who is simply a bitch. The script is miraculous, as Reiser is able to let the audience into Adam’s life and get to know the people that inhabit it.

            The supporting players wouldn’t matter though, were it not for the utterly impeccable lead performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. No performance has been better in 2011, and no performance will be. No superlatives can accurately describe just how good Gordon-Levitt is in 50/50, as he takes the movie into greatness territory, putting the film on his back and soaring with it; he’s in almost every scene. If there was any justice in this world Gordon-Levitt would be in serious contention for an Oscar, but since the Academy only gives Best Actor Oscars to people playing famous dead guys, he’s not even a lock for a nomination. Dear Academy members, Joseph Gordon-Levitt deserves gold for his performance in 50/50!

            Seth Rogen plays one of the most complex characters of his career (though it’s still a distinctly Rogen-esque role, meaning lots of cursing and drugs). Coming off mostly as a self-absorbed jerk of a friend, Rogen is really playing a character that doesn’t know how to deal with his feelings, and thus resorts to building a façade and acting like an immature idiot. Many of the film’s great scenes involve the back and forth banter between Adam and Kyle, and there is no way you can’t laugh out loud, whenever Rogen is onscreen.

            This is a film that could have easily veered into Lifetime Original Movie territory, but Levine is able to steer the story to a perfect balance so that it always feel real. Sure, there may be one too many shots of Adam sitting on a bus as sad music plays, but somehow even that didn’t bother me, like it would in many other movies.

            During his chemotherapy sessions, Adam befriends two other cancer patients played by Matt Frewer and the legendary Phillip Baker Hall (Magnolia), and the few scenes they share absolutely confirm that 50/50 is a no bullshit approach to cancer.

            Angelica Huston deserves Oscar consideration for her role as Adam’s mother, adding huge emotional depth to her character in the short amount of screen time she has. And Anna Kendrick, who was an Oscar nominee for her performance in Up in the Air, is…really pretty, but also really good at making us believe in the interesting therapist/patient relationship she builds with Adam.

            The cinematography avoids falling into the standard sit-com traps, which helps us be a part of the story, instead of watching it from afar. Plus, a good soundtrack and the unique Seattle setting add to the pure enjoyment I had watching this movie. At only 99 minutes, I wish that it were longer.

            50/50 will make you laugh one minute, cry the next minute, and then laugh again. Now that it’s autumn and the studios are releasing all their Oscar movies, there are many good movies to see, but if you only get to see one, you should see this. It’s my favorite movie of the year so far. 50/50 is phenomenal. 

Cookie Clip of the Week : Total Recall (1990)

Kuato gives Arnold some advice...

Moneyball (2011) Review

Director: Bennett Miller
Writer: Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian

Genre: Sports/Drama

3.5 Cookies

Glass of milk - Brad Pitt

Glass of milk - Jonah Hill

“How can you not be romantic about baseball?”

When I saw The Social Network last year, one of my first reactions (after, “Wow, that was like the best movie ever!”) was that I could not wait to see the next movie written by Aaron Sorkin. When I heard that Sorkin was teaming up with Steven Zaillian (Schindler’s List), to write a movie about baseball, I was excited. When I heard that this baseball movie, written by Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, starred Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, I was ecstatic. When I saw the final product, I was thrilled that it lived up to my self-imposed hype.

Moneyball, directed by Bennet Miller (Capote), is the story of the 2002 Oakland A’s, and how general manager Billy Beane attempted and succeeded to reinvent baseball so that cash strapped teams could compete with the rich teams, by using computer analysis and stats.

The movie opens with the A’s losing to the New York Yankees in the final game of the 2001 American League Division Series. A title card flashes on screen that reads: $114,457,768 vs. $39,722,689 (the salary of the Yankees vs. the salary of the A’s). Oakland’s three best players (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon, and Jason Isringhausen) become free agents in the off-season and because of Oakland’s financial limitations, Billy has no way of resigning them. So, the challenge Billy faces is rebuilding a team with a limited amount of funds in a league with no salary cap. “Baseball is an unfair game,” Billy says at one point.

But the reason Moneyball is great is that it’s about so much more than baseball. It’s about adapting to a system in order to survive, disregarding old ideals in order to improve upon them, doing the unpopular thing because you know it’s the right thing.

Brad Pitt is in full on movie star mode here, his acting crackles like a fastball with just enough cut on it to make a batter swing and miss. There is not a chance in hell Pitt won’t get an Oscar nomination for this performance. Like Jesse Eisenberg did with Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network, Pitt takes a real, living person, and turns him into a great cinematic character. The story of Billy’s past is told with flashbacks throughout the movie, and really helps add to the emotional aspect of the film.

In a rare attempt at a serious role, Jonah Hill knocks it out of the park as Peter Brand, a Yale educated computer genius who helps Billy assemble his team using numbers. Hill nails every scene, every line, being serious when he needs to be, and adding comic relief when called upon.

Moneyball is based on the 2003 book of the same name by Michael Lewis that completely changed the way baseball teams are put together, and led to the Boston Red Sox winning the 2004 World Series, using the strategies Billy implemented in Oakland. Now every team in baseball has Sabermetric analysts to dissect stats in order to build a successful team for the least amount of money.

Moneyball has no Field of Dreams, having a catch with your dead dad on a magical baseball field moment. This story is real, and harsh, more about the business of sports and the difficulties of being a player in a game based off numbers, then it is about baseball being a shining beacon of hope and memory in American culture. Moneyball is a love letter to the game, but it also feels like hate mail too. While Billy based his team completely on stats, human beings still have to play, and one of the movie’s best scenes comes when Billy is forced to cut a player from the roster – the realities of a brutal business, if you don’t produce, you get fired.

This movie is not perfect – director Bennet Miller is not David Fincher (The Social Network), and the film doesn’t completely have the sizzle that the movie might have had if Fincher was at the helm instead of Miller. Regardless, Miller does direct a few sequences masterfully including a great scene where Billy, making multiple phone calls, pulls off a trade right before the trading deadline. The scene feels like the classic scene in Jerry Maguire when Tom Cruise is on the phone trying to keep his clients after being fired, and only ends up with the Cuba Gooding Jr. character.

Also, while it comes just short, Moneyball lacks the emotional punch to the gut that it could have had.

I loved the pacing of this movie – it plays out like a baseball game, taking its time, not rushing to get anywhere too quickly. It’s also pretty cool to hear the names of so many current baseball people being used in a Hollywood film.

You’ll be hearing about this movie a lot for the next few months and it’s going to garner much attention during Oscar season. I’d be surprised if it doesn’t get multiple nominations. Moneyball is one of the best movies of 2011 so far, and it also makes me very excited for October – the playoffs are almost here!

Drive (2011) Review

Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
Writer: Hossein Amini

Genre: Action/Crime


3 Cookies

Glass of milk - Ryan Gosling
Glass of milk - Nicolas Winding Refn

            Winner of the Best Director award at Cannes, Nicolas Winding Refn has crafted an ultra stylish piece of noir, set in the dark streets of Los Angeles, where lights flash all around and palm trees rise from the pavement. Inhabiting these LA streets is the nameless “Driver” (Ryan Gosling), a stunt car driver for movies and auto mechanic by day, and getaway driver for hire by night. Gosling makes Drive worth seeing for his performance alone.

            Continuing to cement his reputation as one of the coolest actors in the game today, Gosling gives an iconic performance armed with black gloves, a white satin jacket that amounts blood as the film progresses, and an assortments of cars. The picture of calm, Gosling doesn’t flinch, sweat, or change expressions whether he’s flirting with his cute neighbor (Carey Mulligan) or beating a bad guy’s head to pulp. Gosling possesses a certain “it” quality that few actors have, reminiscent of James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause or a young Marlon Brando – gaining heartthrob status for his role in The Notebook, Gosling could have veered into the world of crappy Hollywood blockbusters, but instead has taken risks, signing up for small, challenging roles, and now seems to be on the brink of legit movie star status. With a role in the best romantic comedy of the year, Crazy Stupid Love, Drive, and the upcoming, The Ides of March, directed by George Clooney, 2011 is turning out to be the year of Ryan Gosling.

            Alongside Gosling in Drive is a supporting cast featuring Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman, and Christina Hendricks.

            At its core Drive is a love story that explodes with brutal violence in the film’s second act. Driver lives alone, has no friends or family, we don’t know his background; all we know is what we see on the surface. When he moves into a new apartment building he almost immediately connects with his new neighbor Irene, played wonderfully by Carey Mulligan, and her son Benicio. Driver and Irene don’t talk to each other very much, but they do stare at each other a lot, as romantic music plays in the background. Their relationship does seem forced at times, as it often feels like the only reason they connect is because they are both incredibly attractive (although I guess that’s reason enough, sometimes). Still, I could buy the idea that Driver is simply seizing an opportunity for a personal connection, and family, that he could never get in his professional life. The catch is that Irene’s husband will be coming home soon, after being released from prison.

            When Irene’s husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), comes home it becomes evident that he is mixed up with some bad people, and he is forced to steal a bunch of money or Irene and Benicio will be killed. Driver agrees to help Standard steal the money, because he will do anything to make sure Irene and Benicio aren’t hurt. Of course, the robbery goes haywire, as Standard is killed, and Driver is forced to go on the run with the stolen cash. The money belongs to Ron Perlman’s character (who says the F word a lot), and Bernie Rose, played by Albert Brooks in a chillingly creepy role. Basically, people with guns come after Driver and he is forced to kill whoever gets in his way, leading up to a final confrontation with Bernie Rose.

            At times, it gets frustrating to follow the plot, as it’s hard to understand why money needs to be stolen, who the money is for, why everyone needs to be killed, and what all the character’s motives are. For example, Christina Hendricks from Mad Men pops up for the big heist scene, but I never could really figure out why.

            Regardless, Refn’s vision drives this film beyond the ordinary – taking a story we’ve seen before and pushing its limits.

            The film is shot beautifully, not meant to look like the Hollywood blockbuster it was originally intended to be when Hugh Jackman was signed up for Gosling’s role. It looks like an 80’s B crime flick, with a Euro influence that still manages to feel distinctly American. There is very little dialogue in Drive so the images must carry the film all the way through. Designing a poster for this film must have been a challenge because there are so many memorable images that could be used.

            In fact, the film’s best scene has no dialogue at all, as Driver and Irene end up in an elevator with an assassin assigned to kill Driver. In one swift motion, Driver grabs Irene, delivering the best movie kiss of the year, before turning toward the assassin, beating him until he’s dead. The elevator scene marks the end of the love story, and the beginning of the explosion of violence to follow. As Irene exits the elevator in shock and the door closes with Driver staring at her, he knows he will probably never see her again, yet all of his actions from now on will be for her.

            The violence in this film is noteworthy. It happens quickly, but when it is time for someone to be killed, blood flows pretty freely. Seeing Albert Brooks slit a man’s wrist with a razorblade is a pretty jarring sight to say the least.

            Drive is a very good movie, though it’s not for everyone, certainly not for the people who want Ryan Gosling from The Notebook back, but what frustrates me is it could have been a great movie. In many ways, Gosling’s performance is better than the movie its in, and it’s a performance that will be remembered for a long time, but Drive itself does not have the same staying power. Refn’s vision is extraordinary but the story as a whole just does not measure up.

            Despite it’s flaws, it’s great to see a movie that takes risks and tries to go beyond the box of a  standard Hollywood action movie. Plus, after seeing this movie I really wanted to drive fast, which might not be considered such a good thing.