Pop Culture Round Up: March 6 - 19

An Omnipotent Enemy Comforts Us

Could This Deleted Scene, Set in Outer Space, Have Won Up in the Air an Oscar?

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, Johnny Depp's latest adventure in gender-bending.

TV Host Silvano Vinceti Probes History's Coldest Cases

Sony to start selling 3-D TVs in June

What Critics Talk About When They Talk About The Nose

Animals Commit Suicide, Too (And Not Just Lemmings)

Shakespearean Insulter

‘Mad Men’ Dolls in Barbie’s World, but Cocktails Stay Behind

Da Vinci gets action film treatment

Pass the Camera: Many Directors Shoot 1 Star-Studded Comedy

How a romantic breakup affects self-concept

Hoax Shakespeare play Double Falsehood turns out to be the real McCoy

Why do I find some of the melodic themes “playing” in my mind for several days after a concert?

More (whingy) songs about film critics and paying work, and a dirty little secret

Talking Back to Your TV Set, Endlessly

Objectification Hinders Some Women's Cognitive Ability

Babies 'born to dance' says York University research

The importance of being vague

Lifetime achievements: Saluting Betty White and other seasoned seniors

Remaking foreign-language films in English

Sigourney Weaver Enters The Fang Club

Top 10 of 2009

Now that I have finally finished my own personal death race (tm Sars, of course), it's time for some unifying, concluding thoughts on last year's movies. Okay, here it is: meh. Bearing in mind the possibility that I can't count, I saw over 60 new releases last year (not including the ticket stub I can't identify). My overall feeling was that it was a blah year for movies. Even though 2007 is generally agreed upon as a spectacular, perhaps unbeatable year for movies, 2008 still had plenty to impress. Maybe I just saw too many stupid 2009 movies. Maybe there just isn't much to recommend this year.

Even so, there are movies from last year worth seeking out if you haven't already. My Top 10 for 2009:

10. Drag Me to Hell
9. Crazy Heart
8. Mary & Max
7. A Single Man
6. Inglourious Basterds
5. District 9
4. The Young Victoria
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox
2. In the Loop
1. The Hurt Locker

The Short Take: Neglect 2009 - Part III

Dinner = eaten. Saved by the Bell = watched.

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

The movie is overall too shaggy to amount to much, though it does deliver excellent doses of George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Stephen Root, Stephen Lang, Robert Patrick, Glenn Morshower*, and Kevin Spacey. Yes, Ewan McGregor also in this movie, but his whole point is react like Clooney is kind of bananas and eventually sort of fall in love with him, i.e. to be the audience. It's not exactly demanding. But Clooney dancing or Spacey inducing a terrible trip? That's good stuff. B

*Has he graduated from Hey! It's That Guy! College? I see him in stuff all the time now.

2012 (2009)

2012 is a) bloated, b) so boring that I went to the bathroom for something to do, and c) ridiculous. I sort of love how cheesy it is. It hits absolutely every trope you could possibly think of and then floods them. People have a right to fight for their survival, Chiwetel Ejiofor? Against a worldwide deluge? Okay, we'll get right on that. I mean, John Cusack's son's name is Noah, for pity's sake. D

Gamer (2009)

Cool trailer, endlessly gross and terrible movie. Doesn't even have the good sense to let the bottom fall out and embrace how truly terrible it is. Michael C. Hall sure seemed to be having fun, though. D

Moon (2009)

It's funny that someone didn't think to multiply Sam Rockwell or make Kevin Spacey a disembodied voice sooner. Those are both exactly the right choices to make. It's not a perfect movie, but it's haunting and beautiful and occasionally very funny. It bodes well for Duncan Jones' career. B+

9 (2009)

A very cool looking movie that isn't that exciting to watch. Shane Acker expanded it from his award-winning short, but the story almost seems better suited to a graphic novel than a feature film. Both the philosophic arguments and pulse-pounding chases that make up the movie make for amusing diversions, but it culminates in a rickety finish. B

The Time Traveller's Wife (2009)

Read my Book vs. Film. Better yet, read the book.

The Soloist (2009)

I never thought of Robert Downey Jr. as an actor in need of direction, and I'm not entirely convinced that that's the problem here. His character is ill-defined, but I doubt we should lay that at the feet of Downey exclusively. I'd sooner say that the problem is director Joe Wright, specifically the relationship between Wright and the material. He also made the lush, passionate, tragic Atonement, so it's not like he can't direct. But he doesn't know what to do here. He puts Jamie Foxx in a room with real life afflicted people. He attempts to show make music looks/feels like to Nathaniel through colour. None of it sticks. I do like that the movie makes it clear that Steve can't ever "fix" Nathaniel, that things just aren't like that, but I'm not sure you should hang a movie about the relationship between a journalist and a schizophrenic musician on the strength of any one's narration even if it is Downey. C

Time to move to couch.

Pop Culture Round Up: January 30 - February 6

How having the web on your phone is changing urban living

You suck, and so does your writing

Independent Cinema - Poised for a D.I.Y. Revolution

RAZZIES Nominations

Zachary Quinto (aka Spock & Sylar) Tunes Up For Spielberg’s Gershwin

Zac Efron to be the next Spiderman

Catalan film theaters go on strike

Yes, “awards season” is stupid, but it beats the alternative

Prokofiev’s operatic talent to bemuse

Basics - Abstract Thoughts Prompt Literal Physical Responses

Is Avatar the All-Time Box-Office Champ or Not? Vulture Has a New Equation

The Odd Situation Of The Best Foreign-Language Film Oscar

Clooney as Batman tops worst movie list

Days of Our Lives actress Frances Reid dies

Risk and the adolescent brain.

"They never have rat exhibits in the zoo. I could start a new trend!"

I normally find a quote that utilizes the month's theme, but it turns out that "liberation" quotes didn't go that well with my latest (Cult)ure article. It's a handy checklist to the trends behind the movies that defined the decade. It will also help explain why your favourite movies from 2000-2009 didn't make anyone's top of the decade list.

Also, I believe I forgot to tell you about the interview I did with writer-director David J. Garfield last month. Enjoy!

Up in the Air (2009) and Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

I feel almost guilty about how much I dislike Up in the Air. I went into it initially thinking I might not like it, and perhaps that sent me down the wrong path. The performances are terrific, particularly Anna Kendrick, who was so funny in her one scene in New Moon, and now gets to chafe and struggle as a bright upstart confined by her work and her workplace. There's something about her you just want to love even when her character is maddening.

George Clooney and Vera Farminga are also lovely and positively glowing together. But this being co-writer and director Jason Reitman's third feature length film, I've noticed a pattern: Thank You for Smoking, Juno, and our current entry all have third act twists that don't line up with the movie that came before. There is one scene of foreshadowing, and poof! Massive character change! It's neither shocking nor realistic, so it ends up feeling empty. Change for change's sake, like someone in the editing room suddenly remembered that there should be a plot, and it should go somewhere.

There is the additional problem that -- and I know I'm going out on the limb here -- Clooney is miscast. He's not bad in the role in any way, so don't think that. He's great. It just that he's so convincingly satisfied with his life before his spiritual awakening, and his life is in no way made better after it that you are left with the feeling that maybe he was right all along. Maybe moving is living. Maybe this is a rebirth. Maybe . . . I don't know, exactly. The movie's ambiguous ending might just be the best part. B

It doesn't help that Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox might just be the perfect deployment of Clooney. Three movies out this fall, and the one where he's an animated character from a Roald Dahl novel might be his best work ever. Somehow without the olde tyme good looks he's extra-charming, as well as vain, generous, loyal, cunning, smart, and sneaky. There's even a gentle waft of self-mockery. The whole thing just feels like so much fun.

Of course, it helps that the movie around him is so wonderful. The setting and colour palette might be autumnal, but the movie feels like a burst of refreshing springtime air. Anderson's fussy compositions get new life when filmed to deliberately resemble Rankin-Bass holiday specials (think Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer).

All the old Anderson cronies are there -- Owen Wilson, Jason Schwarztman, Bill Murray -- as well as delightful new voices like Meryl Streep's subdued take on Mrs. Fox. For a movie that had to be carefully fussed over to be created at all, Anderson achieves a magical sense of joy and freedom in his proceedings. Subsequent viewings may prove Fox his best film yet, but for now we'll have to agree that it's simply fantastic. A-

"People don't realize this, but loneliness is underrated."

The only reason Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who uttered that line, doesn't appear on my Underrated List is time. If I had more time, each letter would have multiple entries. Even so, my A to Z guide to everything in movies you've been missing should have enough to pique your interest.

Pop Culture Round Up: January 17-23

I feel more inclined to watch now.

Ah, George, where would we be with you? I would so read an oral history about you.

I feel like this is the eighth article I have read like this.

"Hopes to put the episodes online"?! What do these bastards want from us?

I was upset about this when I first found out, but now I just feel meh. It happens.

"Movies like “10,000 B.C.” are popular because they appeal to our sense that life used to be more in sync with the environment." Huh? What does it mean if movies like that don't appeal to you?

Dude, that's just what I think!

Heh: "For humans, there is something captivating and unforgettable about the arrangement of two balls."

At first I though "aw" because I think lifelong affairs are sweet, but then I thought, "That's weird" because why would you have an affair with a married man for so long? What are you going to get out of that? I guess I should read the book to find out.

I think this has the potential to be one of the coolest things ever.

I'm so confused. I thought we heard about this movie last year.

I had no idea there was such a thing.

Ha!

Is there anyone in pop culture they didn't keep a file on?

Ah, George, where would you be without that show?

Burn After Reading (2008)

Story: Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) quits his job at the CIA. His wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is having an affair with Harry (George Clooney) and plans to divorce Ozzie. Looking for a picture of his financial information, she burns a disc from his hard drive, which is misplaced at Hardbodies. It falls into the hands of two Hardbodies employees, Linda (Frances McDormand) and Chad (Brad Pitt), who try to blackmail Cox into paying for several cosmetic procedures for Linda in exchange for the disc.

I don't think I've told you anything here that happens after the first twenty minutes, which is about how long I spent waiting for this movie to start. Whatever this was supposed to be, I doubt weirdly off-putting with occasional funny bits" was the goal.

Seriously, I don't get what this was supposed to be. A lark? Doesn't seem like enough fun for that to be true. A satire, as CBC implied to me? Of what, I reply. I know that in the past I've said things along the lines of "it's not supposed to be anything," and that remains true for certain movies. But this isn't that kind of movie. Writing and directing brothers Joel and Ethan Coen go one step beyond this time (cue up "One Step Beyond" by Madness). It's just not enough of anything to be any more than mediocre.

I'm fairly certain you could build an entire movie around the deliberate way Malkovich pronounces "memoir," Clooney's delivery of "Well, hello!" and Pitt's dancing, and I wish that they had. The overlapping plot doesn't work the way it should, it takes too long to get to the Hardbodies characters, and, though we end with the always impeccable J.K. Simmons, there's no emotional pay out because there was never any emotional buy in. The only character that seems to garner any sympathy is Richard Jenkins as Ted, the Hardbodies manager with the best boo-boo kitty face in the industry, so naturally he's relegated to a minor role. The rest of them barely earn a shrug. Well, at least when it's funny, it's very funny indeed. B

Michael Clayton (2007)

Story: When the litigator (Tom Wilkinson) from his firm representing UNorth in a massive civil action suit has a public break down, the firm brings in Michael Clayton (George Clooney) to fix the problem. UNorth's chief council, Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), is less than impressed with Michael, informing his boss at the law firm (Sydney Pollack) and planning to take matters into her own hands.

I bet you're thinking, "Dude, I still don't get what this movie's about. Also, when does that car blow up?" Right away, my friends, as writer-director Tony Gilroy uses JJ Abrams' favourite trope (dropping the viewers into the middle of the story then backing up a few days to find out how we got there) to his peril. We spend far too much time going back over that part of the story, and our only comfort is that we spend slightly less time with the screeching lunatics he meets in the first few minutes.

A few weeks ago, Kim Masters wondered why this movie isn't doing so well in theatres (although, I will note, it appears to have done better since that article was posted). The first point, that it's Clooney, makes some sense. People like Clooney the man but Clooney the actor is another story. The second point, that it's the marketing, makes a lot of sense. I had no idea what this movie was about until I sat down to watch it. The third point could be the subject of a far more interesting article, so let's leave it for now.

Let's debunk the second point by spelling out the plot in a way no commercial is interested in doing. Arthur Edens (that's Wilkinson) is the sole attorney representing UNorth for this law firm, and he knows that UNorth is guilty. Among their other interests, UNorth is responsible for a fertilizer that poisons people. Of course, this is one of the problems with the plot of this movie. We know, almost from the beginning, that UNorth knowingly put on the market a fertilizer that was poisonous. There is no ambiguity on this point nor is the decision to sell it linked to any human. Of the four signatures on the internal document that proves that UNorth knew about the lethal nature of their product in advance, we meet exactly one man, and he has maybe, maybe five minutes of screen time out of the 119 minutes we spend with this story. Of course, that man isn't our eponymous protagonist, so we aren't likely to get any better.

Michael Clayton is our hero, and this is his story. The poisoning of hundreds of farmers is secondary to the slow awakening of his conscience. It's not that that, on its own, doesn't make for an interesting story. It surely does. It's that Michael is so laden down with extraneous subplots that are meant to showcase how ripe for reformation he is that you get bored getting there. Of course he's going to repent. He couldn't get any worse: bad relationship with his kid; bad relationship with his ex (who has, naturally, remarried and had another kid to make sure we understand how well adjusted she is); neglectful of his family, including his dying father; gambling addict; in debt, but no, not to a bank like a normal person, to a loan shark; no significant relationships outside of work; no real relationships at all except with Arthur, a manic-depressive off his meds. Michael's like Harvey Kietel in Bad Lieutenant only self-serious. Even so, Clooney makes Michael's transformation almost entirely* believable, and it's also fun to watch him charm or growl, as the situation merits, on screen.

*There is one scene that strained my credulity so far as to cause me pain, in which he confronts Pollack about the possibility that UNorth is guilty. He's holding the evidence in his damn hand, but he's still asking. Do you think the case would have reached 30 000 billable hours if they were innocent?

Sadly, neither the dullness nor the sheer volume of subplots are this movie's greatest failing. That award is reserved for the movie's latent sexism. There are exactly two female characters of any significance in this movie. First off, we have Karen, chief counsel of UNorth. When we first meet Karen, she's having a sweaty melt down in the bathroom. It never really gets better for our girl. She's shown as nearly pathologically desperate to handle the situation that arises from Arthur's breakdown in order to impress her male mentor and keep her job. Said job calls for difficult and immoral decisions, which the script does not see fight to give Karen the sangfroid to make. Instead, she is constantly on the verge of tears or falling to pieces over things that Gilroy makes abundantly clear Pollack or even Clooney could do without batting a lash. More than once we see her laying out her outfits and putting herself together in the morning, practicing a speech for a meeting or sound bytes for an interview. The only time we see any male character in such a state of disarray is Arthur during his mental collapse. Unlike the rest of the leads, Karen doesn't have a home but a series of hotel rooms. She's the only one who works out, and she does work while on the treadmill. The only female lead is riddled with flaws and given no redeeming characteristics.

She is, naturally, "balanced" out by the virginal Anna (Merritt Wever), a twenty-ish daughter of one of the victim's of UNorth who has never left the farm. The one and only time she does, she brings pastel, floral pyjamas and has a stuffed animal strapped into her suitcase. One's a mess, and the other's infantilized. Thanks, Gilroy.

That said, I still like both Wever and Swinton, who knocks it out of the park every time anyway. It's shame, though. She does sangfroid really well.

Mostly, though, it's just boring. If the leads weren't so good, this movie wouldn't have anything going for it. Oh, and all that good stuff from the preview? From the last act. Good job, marketers! C

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

Outline: Willy Banks (Al Pacino) double crosses his latest casino partner Reuben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould), landing Reuben in the hospital. When Will refuses a Billy Martin from Danny (George Clooney), the gang (Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Eddie Jemison, Don Cheadle, Shaobo in, Casey Affleck, Scott Caan, Bernie Mac, and Carl Reiner) plan to take down Banks' casino during the soft open as payback, with a little help from Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) and Roman Nagel (Eddie Izzard).

Oh, how delightful. The series goes back to its roots: Las Vegas and fun. Yup, it's fun again, kids. Might as well enjoy it.

Director and cinematographer Steven Soderbergh has it back on the rails, and it rolls along quickly and smoothly. Writing team Brian Koppelman and David Levien keep the plot streamlined, allowing more room for the loving character bits that made the first installment such a thrill to watch. There are plenty of giggle-worthy in- and out of character jabs.

Also, much to my delectation, Affleck gets his own subplot, and it's both relevant and hilarious. As much as the big stars are important, and as much as convivial amusements as Cloons, Pitt, Damon, Garcia, etc. bring to the screen, these movies are only as good as their supporting players. If Caan and Affleck, despite looking nothing alike, weren't believable antagonistic sibs, the movie would grind to a halt when they hit the screen. If Qin, with his lovely head of hair, wasn't such a good sport, the rest wouldn't matter.

Pacino tones it down enough to let his enjoyment in this boys club show, and the crazy hot Ellen Barkin adds the needed estrogen boost.

So much of the first picture comes full circle this time around that it's easy to forget the failings of the second. In fact, why don't we? Let's just sit back and enjoy. B+

The Good German (2006)

Story: Captain Jacob Geismer (George Clooney) returns to Berlin to cover the peace conference at Potsdam at the end of WWII. His driver, Tully (Tobey Maguire), is suspicious. When Jake discovers that Tully is going around with his old girl, Lena (Cate Blanchett), it only looks all the more suspicious to Jake. By the time a body turns up at the conference, Jake's got one heck of a mystery on his hands.

The movie I saw the day after Children of Men obviously had a tough act to follow. I couldn't bring myself to turn on the TV, and popping in a DVD was out of the question. Even so, we made our way over the ye olde Bytowne.

I gotta say - this movie was a lot of fun to watch. Few directors can infuse their films with energy the way Steven Soderbergh does, and I'm pretty sure the fact that he acts as his own cinematographer and editor (under pseudonyms) has something to do with it. All that hoopla about 40s technology and imitating a more stagey style of acting is pretty soon forgotten. The film moves along at a good clip, and it's easy to enjoy.

Oh, Thomas Newman. First Little Children and now this? It's like you've been listening to my complaints. Your big, booming score recalled Bernard Herrmann in the best possible way.

I didn't write this review yesterday because I realized that beyond the above, I didn't have much else to say. I was entertained by what I saw up the screen, and I'm certain that I will enjoy seeing it a second and third time. But, to me, it's like Ocean's Eleven. It's fun and well done. Soderbergh's equally adept with that caper as he is with this noir, but it's not a heady movie. It's noir, to be sure, but it's still light. On the other hand, it's quite the feat to make a noir that isn't heavy.

Basically, it's fun and the topic can be serious, but the movie doesn't really take itself that seriously. It's a diversion in the best sense of the word. B+

Syriana (2005)

Plan: Bob Barnes (George Clooney) is a CIA agent who specializes in, um, something. Don’t ask me. He blows some people up and later he gets tortured. Lawyer Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) is contracted by two oil companies, Connex and Killen (Chris Cooper works for one of them), to look into the companies’ dirty laundry so that their merger may be approved by Congress. Energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon) accepts a position with the more radical prince (Alexander Siddig) and eldest son of the Emir of non-descript Middle Eastern country (Saudi Arabia?), while his more conservative brother (Akbar Kurtha) cozies up to another, more senior lawyer from Holiday’s firm, Dean Whiting (Christopher Plummer). Finally, two immigrants who are fired from one of Connex’ or Killen’s plants in non-descript Middle Eastern country join an Islamic school in order to eat.

Wow, that description is really long and captures almost none of what happens in the movie. Plus, I’m still unclear on a few of the character’s names. Just now I discovered that Woodman’s son’s name was Max.

Imagine, if you will, that the writer of Traffic (Steven Gaghan) decided to write something even more politically charged with an even more labyrinth-like plot. He decides to direct it, too, which, for a writer, guarantees creative control over the project. Ta-da! You get this movie. On the one hand, it beautifully scripted and acted. The film is highly engaging. On the other hand, it’s almost impossible to follow.

Take Clooney’s plot line for example. In a given scene, I know what’s happening to Bob, I know what’s already happened, and I have no clue what’s going to happen next. Worse yet, I’m not entirely sure how his past and his present are connected. Of course, this example skews your interpretation of the results since this is the plot I least understood.

Unlike Wright’s, which I have seen other critics sight as a source of confusion. No, my friends. Makes sense to me. Plus, you get another top notch performance from a chameleon who I would easily put in the same league as Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and I think we all know how I feel about him. Except for one thing: the sub-plot with Bennett’s alcoholic father (at least I assume that was his dad). Was it supposed to make me sympathetic to Bennett? Help me understand his motives? Bewilder me? Pick C!

I have to admit it – this was the first time I’ve liked Damon this century without him playing a bumbling, low-level thief. Sure, it upsets me just as much as the next girl when a child is sacrificed for the sake of plot development, but I guess you just have to let this sort of thing go. Unlike Amanda Peet’s four inch heels. Those pissed me off.

Odd as it may seem (for I don’t enjoy not knowing what’s going on), I rather liked this movie, even if it made no sense most of the time. The themes carried over the plot confusion, and it could have survived on the strength of the performances alone. B+

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

Premise: In 1953, journalist and host of CBS’s “See It Now”, Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn), together with his producer, Fred Friendly (George Clooney), and rag-tag team decide to take the bullhorn against Senator Joseph McCarthy (himself)’s red scare.

Okay, so the team’s not really rag-tag. I just liked the way that sounded. I also acknowledge that Murrow and his crew were neither the first nor the last to attack McCarthyism.

Maybe I’m a little bit biased because this movie is so obviously aimed at my bleeding liberal heart. Maybe I’m a bit biased because the Bytowne has decided to crank it up several notches to get me back in the fold. And maybe, just maybe, I was seduced by the spontaneous applause at the end of the film from in the packed cinema because it’s just been too damn long since a movie made anyone want to stand up and cheer.

Even so, I’ve been racking my brain since I saw it on Friday, and I still cannot come up with a single thing I didn’t like about this sparkling gem.

Sure, the sight of a smoky, darkly lit room where reporters discuss the day’s papers from across the country to suss out what news is worth mention on television that week sends my heart into quasi-orgasmic fits of glee because it matches my image of what newsrooms looked like back when the news really mattered. Quite obviously, it matched director/co-writer/producer/supporting player Clooney’s image as well.

I’m going to have to send him a little note thanking him for his decision, circa 1998, to stop sucking and rock has hard as his old school matinee idol good looks, talent, and pitch perfect combo of smarm/charm would let him.

Perhaps the success of this movie is wrapped up in the casting of Strathairn has the euphonically named Murrow. He’s a slight man, not all that well known, and certainly not go-to Hollywood leading man. And yet, there he is: pitch perfect. Cigarette smoke slowly curling away from his perfect placed hand, beautiful three piece (!) suits, power, passion, regret, resignation, humility, confidence, and sympathy. Anyone else would need a three page monologue to get what Strathairn gets out of a single tilt of his head. The way he can never quite look the camera in the eye as he wished them good luck is filled with the knowledge that it will never be enough. Strathairn’s Murrow knows right well that he could be ruining the careers and lives of the men in the room with him when he decides to take on the Senator, and, no matter how passionately they throw themselves into the task, he can never quite get that guilty look out of his eye. I could go on and on about every single gesture and line, Strathairn was that good.

Some people felt that the subplot about the secretly married Robert Downey, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson (a fact that could get them fired at the time) was a bit tacked on. Nothing involving the two of them could ever be wrong, I say.

Not everyone was into the interspersed jazz numbers. I came to the somewhat befuddling conclusion that George Clooney is jazz. I know, I know, it makes no sense in the clear light of day. I still can’t shake the idea that there is some parallel between George Clooney/film and Miles Davis/jazz. Plus, I found it a refreshing alternative to a traditional score full of emotional violins and triumphant trumpets.

Why have Senator McCarthy play himself, people have asked. Clooney and co-writer Grant Heslov are simply doing exactly what Murrow, et al. did fifty years ago: letting the Senator damn himself with his own words.

Most of all, why does a movie set half a century in the past have more relevance today than anything else I have seen this year? Because back then the news mattered. It meant something. It stood up to the government instead of playing its lap dog. Bill O’Reilly may net two million viewers a night, but he represents one incredibly biased part of the spectrum.

I was talking with my grandmother within hours of my screening, and I told her what movie I had just seen. She told me that back then, when television networks still acknowledged this new medium as an educational tool, news anchors weren’t all part of a bland, indiscernible passel nor did they occupy the loathsome celebrity realm of “personality.” Back then, back when the news really mattered, the anchors on these shows were people to be respected and admired. They were heroes.

George Clooney, for telling a bittersweet true story, and for attacking the embedded quality of news outlets today, you are my hero. A+

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

Idea: The whole gang from Ocean's Eleven is back. Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) wants it all back with interest, so they head out to three European cities to get it. Isabel (Catherine Zeta-Jones), however, is something of a jilted ex and hot on Rusty's (Brad Pitt) tail. They get into some trouble when they encounter a rival thief known only as the Nightfox.

Basically, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Scott Caan, Shaobo Qin, Bernie Mac, Don Cheadle, Carl Reiner, Eddie Jemison, and Elliott Gould are up to their old tricks. And good tricks they are.

Except something isn't working here. And it's Steven Soderbergh.

George Nolfi's script nails the characters, but he ignores the setting as a character. Ocean's Eleven wouldn't have worked if it wasn't set in Las Vegas. It showcased that glittering steel trap beautifully. It's a bad sign, however, when people can't work Amsterdam and Rome. They seem like pretty easy cities to work.

But that's not the point. See, the first movie was a slick caper. Not your usual Soderbergh fare, but something smooth and completely seamless, from start to finish. Not so here. A Soderbergh film without doubt, but now it's no longer a heist movie. It has to be something more. So he sacrifices fun in the place of excessive close ups and disjoin, you-never-know-until-the-end-what's-really-going-on story telling. You could make a case for that in the first movie, but you'd have to see the sequel to understand the difference.

Still there are noteworthy elements at play.

Topher Grace has the best cameo since well . . . I don't even know. I just died when he said that he "totally phoned it in on that Dennis Quaid thing." Just died.

Clooney, my smarmy friend, and Pitt work well together, and everyone looks great. I swear, these movies are more about costuming than anything else. Zeta-Jones looks fabulous the whole way through. I wanted her wardrobe so very much. Too many great items to list.

Did they all phone it in, though? Maybe. B.

Out of Sight (1998)

Outline: Jack Foley (George Clooney) breaks out of prison with the help of his ex-partner, Buddy (Ving Rhames), and they kidnap a US Marshall, Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez), in the process. An attraction develops while Karen and Jack are locked in the trunk, and Karen escapes only to spend her days chasing Jack down.

In all honesty, the only good movie Lopez has ever done. This was the first movie I ever saw her in, and I truly believe that every movie she’s done since gets worse and worse.

Clooney and Lopez are great together, though, and there’s enough chemistry between them to make their strange attraction palpable.

Now, I may have referred to Clooney as the Coens’ golden boy before, but I don’t think there’s anyone who loves him more than Steven Soderberg (director). He also seems to be a big fan of Don Cheadle, so I really can’t blame him.

Plus, it helps that he’s a great director. It’s like all his movies have this pulse to them, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it from sweeping right over you. It’s a fantastic feeling, really. He’s a director who gets carried away without the audience ever feeling that way. Everything’s always cut just so so that you’re never feeling drawn out or disappointed.

Scott Frank’s screenplay is best described as clever. Not the best I’ve ever seen but certainly not the worst. He seems to want to get right in there with his characters, even if it doesn’t always play out.

Oh, and Dennis Farina, Michael Keaton, Steve Zahn, Luis Guzman, Albert Brooks, and Catherine Keener are along for the ride, so that’s good.

I recommend it. I think it’s pretty fun. Fun’s a good thing in a movie.

For a different point of view on King Arthur (and that girl that's in it) click here.

Also, here's something that doesn't impress me at all:
Not impressed about this
Not impressed about this either

One Fine Day (1996)

Short: Jack Taylor (George Clooney), divorced father of Maggie (Mae Whitman), meets Melanie Parker (Michelle Pfeiffer), divorced mother of Sammy (Alex D. Linz), when they both show up late to their kid's field trip. They decide, despite their quick judgements of each other, to help each other out for the day when it comes to looking after the kids. Sparks fly. Because love can happen in one day, right?

Except that it can't. But that's beside the point.

I remember when I saw this movie in the theatre, I was disappointed. But, when I watched it again, I was pleasantly unimpressed because I didn't expect much in the first place. When it comes to seeing a movie a second time, it's okay to lower your expectations. There are very few situations in which you should lower your expectations, but this is one where it is appropriate.

Here's the thing though: what is with this movie expecting me to believe that Pfeiffer doesn't have men throwing themselves at her? I mean it, I can't stand these movies where obviously beautiful women are supposed to be unattractive. Who are they kidding? It's not like they gave her a big fake nose or something.

As for Clooney, I think he wasn't really as good then as he is now. He was too stigmatized by Dr. Ross. I'm sure it was a tough mold to break out of, but I like him a lot better for it.

So, um, yeah, Michael Hoffman (director), Terrel Seltzer (writer), and Ellen Simon (writer). Not good. In fact, pretty bad. But cute kids and good looking adults do their best to save that.

But, to balance out this not-so-good feel good movie and to make up for my lack of recent posts, I thought I would throw in a Top 5 for good measure.

Top 5 Tear Jerkers
1. Dead Poets Society (O captain, my captain!)
2. Swing Kids (Swing Hiel, Peter! Swing Hiel!)
3. Frequency I can't handle fathers and sons who say I love you
4. With Honors close enough to the above
5. The Prince of Egypt parting of the Red Sea, enough said.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Brief: Introspective look at the conflict at Guadalcanal (in the South Pacific) during World War II. Although an ensemble piece, focuses mainly on a wayward Private (Jim Caviezel), his Sergeant (Sean Penn), and the Lieutenant Colonel (Nick Nolte) leading them into battle.

This movie came out after Saving Private Ryan, and, although I recall some kind words, what most people said was that it was no Saving Private Ryan. Well, that's true. But who said it was trying to be Saving Private Ryan?

Writer and director Terrance Malick adapted James Jones' autobiographical novel. It's apparently a limited omniscient autobiographical tale. The film works by bringing you into a close-up of a certain character, then you get to hear his thoughts. In addition, there is no character named Jones that I could find. So, I figured it's considered autobiographical because he was there, but Malick took the film in another direction. I've never seen anything else Malick has written or directed, so I have no idea whether this is a habit of his.

Now, when I said ensemble, I was dead serious. This is almost as ensemble as they come. And you know that nothing makes me more excited than a well done ensemble. Penn is billed above title, and the rest are listed alphabetically, which is odd, as I believe Nolte has the biggest part, then Caviezel. In any case, I will tell you some of the faces I recognized; Adrien Brody, Ben Chaplin, George Clooney, John Cusack, Woody Harleson, Elias Koteas, Jared Leto, Dash Mihok, Tim Blake Nelson, John C. Reilly, and John Travolta. I felt that the uber-talent (and beautiful) Brody was wasted given that he had only a handful of lines. Chaplin does a fair bit of narration, all about his wife, and he was pretty darn good. I already liked Chaplin, but I didn't know how nice his voice was to listen to prior to this.

I confess, I do not know what the thin red line is/means. Honestly, I don't think they came right out and said that in the film, and I didn't pick up on the symbolism. In fact, at the end of the film, I was thinking, "The thin red line between what and what? between what and what?!" See, I was pissed because the movie is so long (170 mins), yet I had no clue what the title referred to.

Oh, yeah, Hans Zimmer scored the movie. Hans Zimmer scores everything. And he does it really well. Enough about that.

So, to sum, great cast, long, no Saving Private Ryan. If you want Saving Private Ryan, though, go out and rent Saving Private Ryan. That should solve all your problems right quick.

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Brief: A bored divorce lawyer (George Clooney) falls for the soon-to-be-ex wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) of his philandering client (Edward Herrmann). Although he initially finds her attractive, it isn't until he realizes what a creative gold-digger she is that she actually piques his interest.

The whole time I watched this move, I sighed, "Oh, Coens" in a delighted way. That said, if you don't like the Coens (freak!) or if you don't prepare yourself going into the movie by knowing and accepting that this is a Coen movie, then you aren't going to like it, and you might not get it. Not get it, you ask? But it's a romantic comedy? What's to get? Well, dear reader, that would be the purpose of Coen movies. They require you to suspend reality and move into their magical and sometimes frightening little world. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Clooney, having worked with the Coens before (O Brother, where art thou?), blazes on the screen with Zeta-Jones. He seems to be attempting a cross between Clooney and Jimmy Stewart under Frank Capra's direction, but it all works out. Any of the bumps are quickly put out whenever he and Zeta-Jones share the screen - white hot chemistry. White hot.

Of course, the more scheming Zeta-Jones gets, the more charming and desirable she becomes. Perfectly costumed, lighted, and made-up, Zeta-Jones becomes the object of anyone's affection that she chooses. Good for her.

Alright, this isn't the Coens best work. It's also not the best romantic comedy I have ever seen. It is, however, Coen through and through, and, if you are a fan, you'll get a real kick out of this feature.