Eastern Promises (2007)

Brief: After a fourteen year-old girl dies on her table, midwife Anna (Naomi Watts) takes a special interest in getting the girl's Russian diary translated, so Anna can return the baby to the girl's family. When her Russian uncle, Stepan (Jerzy Skolimowski), initially refuses to translate the diary, Anna takes it to Russian restaurant whose card she found between the pages. The proprietor, Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl), offers to translate diary, but encounters with Semyon's son, Kirill (Vincent Cassel), and his driver, Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen), convince Anna's family that she has accidentally fallen in with the Russian mob.

That makes it sound like Anna's the protagonist, at least at first, but the movie slowly shifts its focus to Nikolai's upward mobility within the family and is a lot better off for it. But we'll get back to that.

I know I made it seem like director David Cronenberg and I had parted ways, but I had heard so many good things about his latest (as well as about him as director generally) that I had to check it out. I realized that it was a good thing when Emily and I turned to each other at the end and agreed that this was by far the most coherent Cronenberg narrative we had ever seen.

Working from a script by Steven Knight, who had previously visited London's underworld and immigrant experience 2002's similarly themed Dirty Pretty Things, Cronenberg temporarily drops his exploration of the nexus of sex and violence (at least on-screen) to focus on his other pet theme: identity. Both how we develop it and how we justify it over time are central to plot within the Russian mafia and to Mortensen's character's development in particular. We learn early on that your tattoos tell your life story in mob and without them you're nobody, and Nikolai's steep climb to get his three stars (the Russian mafia equivalent of being a made man) is as compelling and tense as any story I have seen on-screen.

Much more so than Anna's story. For all Watts' good work (I like her more every time I see her), Anna is so pathologically naive that at a certain point it becomes difficult to sympathize with her even though she is trying to do right by the baby. She makes such obviously stupid choices that it's a damn good sight things turn out the way they do. I don't want to give anything away, but, honestly, Anna could have benefited from having to learn a lesson or two. Again, that's on Cronenberg and Knight and not on Watts, who is radiant in her fierce protection of the baby.

Frequent collaborator Howard Shore's score work elegantly with the piece. The way he develops his themes and variations slowly, rarely completing his musical thought until the end, is well suited to the way a Cronenberg narrative unfolds.

Maybe Cronenberg and I can come to some sort of an agreement instead of an impasse. We'll have to wait and see with his next picture. Until then, B+

Pop Culture Round-Up

Leave it to those trusty cynics over at the AV Club to take the mick out of fall prestige movies.

Why is it that I've never really noticed this before?

I could do without number 3, but I have to agree with No.1.

Does this picture freak anyone else out?

Who doesn't want to see Sars in a tomato costume?

You were just looking for crowns in all the wrong places.

I was pretty exited when I discovered that Slate was publishing a Fall TV Issue. Love Slate though I do, their television coverage isn't the most expansive, and I felt like it took a while for Troy Patterson to find his footing after Sufergirl Liz Penn moved on to film review. Besides, I watch a lot of TV. More articles from a source I love about those very shows? Sign me up.

The very first article I clicked on was Matthew Gilbert's "Too Many Heroes: The Plague of Cast Overpopulation." The title gives away at least one of the shows Gilbert will single out for his criticism, but he also briefly touches on the massive Grey's Anatomy cast. And there, my friends, is a missed opportunity.

It's simple: Heroes makes its massive cast work; Grey's doesn't. Gilbert claims that the cast overpopulation has turned Heroes into a mess: it's just too difficult to follow. Maybe years of watching soaps has prepared me for this challenge, but I don't find a damn thing difficult about the overlapping plotlines. I've watched a fair number of twisty and complicated shows in my day, and Heroes has to be one of the most deft at integrating the characters and plotlines in a way that is engrossing and rewarding for the audience.

How do they do it? That's pretty simple, too, actually: most episodes don't feature every character, and they regularly kill off secondary and tertiary characters (goodbye, George Takei!). Gilbert ignores the former and suggests the latter is a flaw. He alleges that, "In the last few seasons, Lost, 24, The Sopranos, Desperate Housewives, and Heroes have all goosed their ratings and left fans buzzing by rubbing out a character or two." I don't or no longer watch a fair number of these shows, but I will tell you this much: I have seen every season of 24, and killing off a character is not a recent development. If anything, the show's willingness to kill just about anyone (except Jack, of course) is its claim to fame.

As for the rest of it, what, exactly, is wrong with goosing the ratings or leaving fans buzzing? Why shouldn't a show with too many characters, as Gilbert feels, get rid of a few? Especially a show whose major arc involves a serial killer. A ratings stunt, maybe, but Sylar was pretty much killing off a character an episode, not too mention those taken out by the other heroes or Bennett and The Company.

If anything, Heroes has to deal with its massive cast a lot more intelligently than other shows that boast larger groups. He mentions Brothers & Sisters, er, and GA. All of these shows link their characters through a single point: family or work. Heroes uses both and often neither. The cast is more geographically and generationally expansive, and, yes, the writers do use family and work to bring the characters together, but they also rely on the show's overarching mythology to bind them into working toward common goals and against a common enemy. They never have to stick together simply because they are family, and they never have to run into people they'd rather not see because they all work in the same place. It is their abilities that bind them, in the end, and how the show weaves characterization and ability together is not only clever, it's reminiscent of the genius that went into the first three seasons of Buffy.

Of course, when it comes to dealing with the negatives weigh down a voluminous population, Heroes has an ace in the hole: the graphic novel. Why waste screen time on reams of exposition and backstory? Put it in the novel! Want to introduce a new character? Give 'em their own novel or even multi-novel arc! And, if you want, you can kill 'em off there, too (bye, Hana!). Big cast or no, the novel streamlines things for the audience.

Heroes has two things going for it: the forward momentum of the plotlines (minus a handful of gaffes, e.g. most of the stuff that goes down with Hiro) and, yes, its many characters. We never spend too much time on anyone person or ability, so we get the impression that any time we do spend is going to be exciting and important. The opposite is true for GA: every character is shoehorned into every episode, but the writers have lost their ability to balance the focus between the different characters and their arcs. As a result, last season saw mass character assassination and egregious "twists" to the point of turning viewers off of watching the show.

So, think it through next time, Mr. Gilbert. Of course we're going to find someone to hook onto. The subtitle might as well be Parade of Pretty People who can do Cool Shit.

Pop Culture Round-Up

Yipee! But what can we expect of the awards themselves?

Could it be that the real John Cusack is even dreamier than his on-screen persona?

Geoffrey Macnab reminds us that remakes are old hat.

Try your hand at deciphering movie ratings.

Once (2006)

Premise: A busker and vacuum repairman (Glen Hansard) meets a Czech immigrant (Markéta Irglová) who collaborates with him on a number of songs.

There's not much more to it than that, and there shouldn't be either. This film is, by and large, the best picture I have seen all year, and one of the better ones I have seen in my life. Never before has a movie so perfectly captured the magic of artistic collaboration.

It certainly helps that writer-director John Carney's original leads fell through, leading him to cast his friend Hansard and Hansard's friend Irglová. Neither of them are actors, but they are musicians who do everything possible to help us understand and experience for ourselves how unlikely and how pure it is to meet and work with someone else who's gifted.

Hansard and Irglová portray a tentative and moving working class courtship, filtered through their stunning and powerful music (nearly all selections were written by Hansard, Irglová, or both). To see two such talented people fall instantly in sync sends vibrations through the theatre, removing any pessimism or doubt. Carney uses handheld camera work to bring us into their intimate bond, and it never once feels like exploitation or voyeurism. Instead, the warmth between the leads envelopes you, as it does everyone they come in contact with, from a musically inclined bank manager to a collection of other buskers to a tired studio hand.

Their first song will leave you quivering, and the final moments will break you all the way down. It's raw and poignant and immediate in a way that so movies rarely are these days. It is love lost and found that frames this film, and you, too, will find it in watching this film. A+

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Premise: Rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale), in danger of losing his land, takes a job assisting in the transport of Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) from Bisbee to Contention for the 3:10 train bound for Yuma prison. With Wade’s crew, led by second in command Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), hot on their tails, the rest of the men (Peter Fonda, Dallas Roberts, Kevin Durand, and Alan Tudyk), including Dan’s son William (Logan Lerman), struggle to keep hold onto Wade and get him on that train.

I think I just told you less than the trailer and TV spots revealed, so we’re in pretty good shape.

N.B. I haven’t seen the original 1957 version, so I won’t be able to provide any points of comparison.

You must have known there was no way I was going to be able to resist this one. Christian Bale + Russell Crowe + a Western + James Mangold = my butt in a seat. It’s simple math. Actually, I’m pretty sure you could combine any two of those four elements and get my butt in a seat.

Oh, Christian Bale, why you got to play me this way? Why do you have to take a stand against Crowe: Professional Diva and cut him down to size, never letting him for a second grow larger than life, and get him to share the spotlight? Why do you have to be so good? You made Dan’s plight heartbreaking and thoroughly masculine, and you threw it right in the face of Ben’s own struggles against man and his institutions. That Ben and Dan could find common ground outside of Ben’s charms and manipulations (a combination practiced by only the best villains) and that it could come easily and naturally speaks volumes about seeing these two . . .

Why, hello there, Ben Foster! I knew you were in this movie, yet I didn’t recognize you at all. When did you become such a chameleon? All swagger and affectation, the perfect second in command, it’s your devotion to Wade that drives this film. If I didn’t have a good look at your eyes every once and while, I may have mistaken you for a much older character actor. Good for you.

Although I loathe admitting it, I noticed that director Mangold’s first feature after Walk the Line has the same two flaws as that movie: the second act drags, and I find it impossible to sympathize with a secondary character. One hundred and seventeen minutes isn’t a long running time, so the drag isn’t too bad.

Dan’s son William, on the other hand, drove me to distraction. It’s not that I can’t understand why William acts the way he does. On an intellectual level, I get it. He’s at a point in his life where he’s beginning to see the man instead of the myth, and it’s frustrating to discover how human your parents can be. To that end, Lerman plays William very well. But one look at his family’s hardscrabble life and the way his attitude and actions make it all the more difficult, and I was calling for a smack. Whether the blame lies with Mangold, Lerman, the script, or somewhere between, I could not tell you. Sometimes his scenes with Bale elevated him to the point of being bearable, but most of the time I wanted someone to teach William a lesson.

All in all, it’s Bale’s film with Crowe offering (dare I say it?) gracious and delightful support. Bale gets to take Dan on one hell of a journey, while Crowe gets to peel away at Ben’s layers. It’s a great fit for both of them, and that’s great news for the audience. A-

Interview (2007)

Brief: Political reporter Pierre Peders (Steve Buscemi) gets assigned a "personality profile" of starlet Katya (Sienna Miller). His disdain when they meet at the restaurant causes her to bolt, but a subsequent car accident brings Pierre up to Katya's loft where the real interview begins.

And by real interview, I mean night-long psychological warfare.

It's fitting that I have the TV on in the background while I write this review instead of spending the first ten minutes or so struggling vainly to find the right music. This movie is pretty much all talk between the two leads, and, while I can like that in a movie, I thought I'd warn you.

Buscemi also directed and co-scripted this English adaptation of slain Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh's original, and, while I found it every bit as beautifully directed as the only other Buscemi feature I have seen, I got hung up on a certain point and couldn't really get past it. I'm reluctant to tell you about it, in fact, because I don't want to bias the movie for you, but, hey, that's the whole point of a review, right? If you don't want to know, leave now because I am going to say it.

Everything that I read before I saw this movie made, well I wouldn't say a big deal, but made a point of mentioning that there is a clear winner and a clear loser by the end. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is open to interpretation. Just knowing that spoiled the movie for me. I went looking for clues and with every one I made a guess. And I kept on guessing right to the point that nothing about it was all that surprising for me. Yes, there were little surprises along the way, surprises about how we were going to get from A to Z, but knowing Z too soon robs the movie of a lot of its dramatic tension. And the fact that there is a known Z, well, that doesn't help either.

The real surprise, in fact, was Miller. Known to me as nothing so much than the perpetrator of many a crime against fashion, Miller is nothing short of a revelation here. Always acting, always maneuvering, always watching for her next opening, her Katya is as sleek as a cat and as dangerous as a lioness. It's a thrill waiting to see what Katya'll come up with next.

Clear winner or no, it is entertaining to watch Pierre and Katya circle one another. Too bad it couldn't have been more. B+

George Washington was in a cult, and the cult was into aliens, man.

As a charter member of the Feria Films cult, you take your Elfin April fix where you can get it. Well, starting immediately, you can get it once a month in (Cult)u're Magazine. In my first article, "The Test," I take a look at a handful of September releases to see which actor has the best chance of breaking out as a Serious Actor.

Check out the rest of the mag while you're there (there's some good stuff, kids). It'll be in the sidebar from now on, and I'll give you updates about my articles when they go up. Stay tuned!

Pop Culture Round-Up

Yes! Yes, yes, yes. I take my Bell where I can get her, and I would definitely like to get her next to Venti.

Hurrah! Guess which one I'm celebrating.

I hear you, Amelie. Funny yet somehow not. Of course, I might be swayed by my love of Walk the Line.

Make movies less expensive (sort of).

Get excited about upcoming Westerns by taking a look at some older ones.

2 Days in Paris (2007

Idea: On the way home from a vacation in Italy, Marion (Julie Delpy) and her boyfriend Jack (Adam Goldberg) stop in Paris for two days to meet Marion’s parents (Marie Pillet and Albert Delpy, Julie Delpy’s real life parents) and see the city were Marion grew up before returning to their lives in New York.

I wasn’t sure that I wanted to catch this one in theatres, so I did a little reading before I made up my mind. Critics seemed very keen on the idea that writer and director Delpy, in her feature length debut, made her character the bigger asshole. I’d put it another way, but there really isn’t another word that so perfectly captures the misanthropy and bile that is at the centre of Marion and Jack’s relationship.

It’s not that it doesn’t make for entertaining and occasionally amusing viewing, as it assuredly does. I’m just not sure that I found Marion to be the bigger asshole. Her two biggest flaws are the way she disrespects Jack’s need for privacy in the relationship and the way she deliberately erects a language barrier between everyone else and Jack. Delpy plays it all beautifully, particularly when she becomes convinced that she has an allergic reaction at a party and in a series of tense cab rides.

For all Marion’s flaws, though, nothing about her bothered me quite so much as the way Jack treated Marion. The majority of the tension in the film found in the will-they-or-won’t-they-break-up is based in Jack’s reaction to Marion’s sexual past. He meets approximately three past lovers and decides, based solely in his jealousy, that his girlfriend is a slut. Having had three lovers prior to the age of 33 is hardly worth getting worked up over. And still he does. By the time he accuses her of having anger management and impulse control problems after she justifiably attacks an ex, Jack seemed like the bigger asshole to me.

Still, Goldberg makes Jack a recognizable character, if not a wholly likable one. His discussion with the “fairy” (Daniel Brühl) he meets at a fast food restaurant makes Jack’s emotional baggage crackle with intensity and real hurt. The bond between Marion and Jack may be a tense, brittle one, but it’s also more alive and believable than anything I have seen in recent romantic movies.

I read an interview with Delpy where she confesses that she basically made up Goldberg’s character in the editing room. Between that and her frequent narration, I can’t help wondering what the other movie could have been. B

Becoming Jane (2007)

Brief: A young Jane Austen (Anne Hathaway) rebuffs the romantic advances of the young men (Laurence Fox, Leo Bill) in her neck of the woods to the delight of her father (James Cromwell) and the chagrin of her mother (Julie Walters). Her bother Henry (Joe Anderson) returns to the family’s home with his friend Tom Lefroy (James McAvoy) in tow, and Jane takes an immediate interest in this new specimen.

I wasn’t expecting this movie to be very good. When asked, I’ve described it as not very good. While I’ve heard the theory that Jane’s central romances were based on one of her own, there is little evidence to support it. The only evidence, in fact, suggests that the real Miss Austen lead a dull life. So I took this movie not as biography but as a supposal: suppose Jane had had a romance with a young Irishman destined to become the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland.

The thing is, though, if you are going to take idea for which there is precious little substantiation and suppose a good deal about it, don’t you think that you would suppose something far more interesting than that which co-writers Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams and director Julian Jarrold have come up?

They spend a good deal of time attempting to establish Jane as headstrong and independent and end up making her a selfish brat instead. Am I supposed to find it cheeky when she awakens her family at 6:15 on a Sunday morning playing the piano forte? Should I sympathize with her when she turns down a perfectly acceptable proposal from a kind young man who genuinely cares for her, knowing full well that doing so could condemn her family to a life of penury? When she criticizes her widowed cousin (Helen McCroy) for daring to find comfort in the arms of a younger man, where should my loyalty fall? With the far more delightful cousin, as it turns out.

It’s not that I don’t like Hathaway. I’ve always liked her. I thought it unfortunate that she got the short end of the stick when it came to the Brokeback Mountain praise, as she did excellent work, particularly in her last scene when she non-verbally conveys the heartbreak of discovering everything she always suspected about her husband to be true. It’s not that she’s bad here, but her attempts at an English accent make her voice sound mousier than ever, and she’s frequently lit and shot in such a way that her eyes look lopsided and her nose like a potato.

Emily noted afterward, and I agree, that cinematographer Eigil Bryld often shot his leads in the worst way possible. Anna Maxell Martin, as Jane’s sister Cassandra, consistently looked radiant, so why doesn’t he extend his leads the same courtesy?

In addition to initially making it difficult for Jane to capture the audience’s compassion, the appearance of Tom Lefroy on the scene does not seem to mark the beginning of a great, ill-fated romance. Instead, through Jarrold’s lens and through McAvoy’s performance, it seems that Tom intends to seduce a woman of good standing for sport. In such moments, Lefroy comes across not as a basis for Mr. Darcy, as the movie is so desperate to suggest, but as the inspiration behind rakes like Mr. Wickam or Mr. Willoughby. Jane’s instant and mildly unbelievable crush on him makes her more Lydia than Elizabeth Bennett.

Still, when the romance begins in earnest, when it comes to candlelit confessions of love and adoration, Hathaway and McAvoy pack a surprising punch, making Jane and Tom’s relationship as tender, tragic, and sexy as it ought to be. For that reason, it makes the inevitable end of their relationship all the more ridiculous (as if these two intelligent creatures cannot find a way out of their present difficulties) and the film’s coda even more difficult to swallow. I’m wary of giving it away, but suffice it to say that I expended most of my energies in trying not to blow a big, fat raspberry at the screen. B –

The Invasion (2007)

Plot: Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman), a Washington psychiatrist, slowly discovers that something very strange is happening around her but finds herself distracted by the sudden return of her ex-husband, Tucker (Jeremy Northam), and the attentions of her best friend, Ben (Daniel Craig). By the time Carol, Ben, and Ben's colleague Stephen (Jeffrey Wright) figure out what is going on, Carol has begun a frantic search for her son, Oliver (Jackson Bond), who has gone missing in his father's care.

Oh, forget it. It took me forever to come up with that, and there's no point in trying to be coy. It's the fourth film version of Jack Finney's novel, for Pete's sake. Fine -- you win. Alien virus takes over human race, turning them into mindless automatons. Oliver may be the cure.

I want you to know that I went into this with my eyes wide open. I fully expected it to suck. And, to be honest, it didn't suck quite as much as I thought it would. Mind you, now I am wondering which scenes were original director Oliver Hirschbiegel and original screenwriter Dave Kajganich's and which to credit to the Wachowski Brothers and James McTeigue. Knowing such things makes it a little tricky to know where to lay blame or praise. Let's just go ahead and call the whole thing not very good, shall we?

Now, it should be pointed out that I've never read the book or seen any of the other versions, so it's quite possible that I may complain about or praise an element that didn't originate here. Well, that's the way it's going to be. I can only comment on what I've seen.

Considering the fact that the plot is so basic (mother desires to protect child against all odds), it's pretty impressive the way the editors wring tension out of a lot of the encounters by moving backward and forward through time near simultaneously. The tension is greatly increased by showing us the beginning of some scary moment, cutting quickly to the aftermath, cutting back into the moment, then further to the end, and so on and so on. It's a clever device that keeps us interested in the 'how' long after we know the 'what.'

The tension is also surprisingly well drawn out by showing the change slowly affecting the city through repetitive shots. We watch Carol walk to work day after day, and the streets slowly morph from lively, jostling place to eerily quiet shadow lands.

Of course, the movie also tries to raises our sympathies in ways that fail spectacularly. Ooo, dogs can sense it! Well, then it must be bad! Aliens always are neglecting their pets! Oh, look -- that kid isn't with his mommy. Heartbreak. Except that part doesn't ring true: everything we've seen before that moment has suggested that pretty much any passerby would instantly turn that kid. So, not so much with the sympathies for that crying kid. In all fairness, I felt sorriest for the elderly woman who was injected* on the train, quietly remarking that she doesn't want a shot. Poor old lady! Who is going to protect her?

*With the alien virus, stupid "Goofs." And the helicopter landed in Baltimore. The movie sucked, but at least some of us managed to stay awake. Oh, look, I can update that page. That's more exciting than the entire movie. Damn thing only wants to listen to me about the helicopter. Oh, I'm a little off track, aren't I?

Shortly after I saw this movie, Em and I agreed that Craig is a stone fox. In fact, I submit that if stone fox finds its way into the dictionary, Craig's picture should appear next the entry. It was great to watch Craig and Wright in all their chameleon glory. This time around they are both reserved science types, although Craig gets to be twinkly and sexy, too.

Their combined talent made Kidman all the more difficult to take. I've long thought of her as good little actress, as adept with comedy as with drama, but this Botoxing her face right out of existence has got to stop. The voice provides plenty of emotion, and she can still squirt some tears out, but I need more. I know she's capable of more. Why won't she just let us see her? Sigh. At least her hair's a bit darker.

There's so much of this movie that doesn't work (spoilers!). The promotional material focused on the last third of the movie, robbing the picture of what should have been its moments of greatest tension. They make Carol's ex Patient Zero, but then they turn his attempts to infect Carol in a creepy pseudo-rape scenario that left me feeling cold. Why not just offer her a beverage like he did with the others? It only makes sense if virus maintains not only Tucker's memories and knowledge but also his feelings of inadequacy and desire to control Carol that he later discusses. Which also didn't ring true. You make a whole big deal about how emotionless the virus makes everyone, how it robs them of their free will, and then you have people turn around and do something that would have had the desire to do before they were infected? WTF? Having a character claim that the virus circumvents humanity's violent impulses and then threaten to murder a child in the same scene? Sort of confusing.

Oh, movie. You try to be political commentary about Iraq; you end up ham-fisted and annoying. You try to draw an ambiguous line about free will; you end up bludgeoning your audience with anvils. If I wanted to see that point made, I'd probably just watch the Jasmine arc from season four of Angel again. I'd be better off. C

Ed. Note: 500th post! Yay me, yay you, yay for everyone!

Superbad (2007)

Premise: With two weeks left of high school and the prospect of heading off to different colleges looming over them, Seth (Jonah Hill) convinces Evan (Michael Cera) that they only way they are going to get with their respective crushes, Jules (Emma Stone) and Becca (Martha MacIssac), is to use Fogell's (Christopher Mintz-Plassse) fake ID to buy the alcohol for Jules' party.

In true into-the-night teen sex comedy style (ah, the films of my youth!), procuring said alcohol and arriving at said party are activities fraught with hilarious difficulty.

I'm a little concerned that I am going to start gushing about this movie any second now, so maybe I should say a few things to temper myself. Occasionally, Hill is more yell-y than funny. Also, I doubt this movie would work if you were in the wrong mood. The best comedies can generally turn any mood into a happy one (I was certainly in need of one when I saw this pic), but I can see how someone might be in a nasty mood and turn against Seth and Evan.

Okay, saying I could see "how" was a little generous. I can see it happening, but I'm not entirely sure I am capable of understanding why someone wouldn't start giggling during the funktastic 70s-style opening credits and keep on giggling right through to the end. I know I did. In fact, there were moments when it was really obvious that I found the movie far more funny than pretty much everyone else in the theatre, and those moments were slightly uncomfortable but mostly sad. To be honest, it kind of reminded me of the roommates I once had that thought it was strange to laugh out loud if no one else was laughing (e.g. if you were reading a book by yourself in your room).

If you're going to watch this movie (and you should), you've got to go ahead and get in a place beforehand where you've accepted what movie you are going to see. You've got to remember that these are the guys who made The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. As funny and sweet as those movies were (and they were, let's be honest), they weren't exactly what one might call "highbrow." Then you have to remember that they've moved the age group back from 40 to 20-ish to high school. Have you got all that in mind? Good. Now go see the movie. Stop sitting there and go out. We'll talk when you get back.

Are you back? No, really, go.

And we're back. Michael Cera has the best delivery and comic timing of any person alive. I challenge you to find anyone else capable of selling absolutely every joke he's handed, especially when it involves singing the Guess Who's "These Eyes." Cera's Evan is as sweet as he is awkward, and it makes him a perfect match for Hill's outrageous Seth.

While Seth has a tendency to rage and push every situation to its illogical, extreme conclusion, Hill bases Seth's actions in his very real need to find a way to cement his friendship with Evan before he loses him. It's sad, and it leads to a lot of messed up stuff, but it's also real and hilarious for that very reason.

All of which adds up to . . . Seth Rogen rocks much harder than the rest of us. He pretty much has to, what with he and co-writer Evan Goldberg being two of the funniest people around today. He and Bill Hader, as the police officers that take Fogell on his very own into-the-night adventure, provide a fine balance to Seth and Evan's increasingly bizarre antics. After all, they have just as important a point to prove.

And director Greg Mottola, a veteran of both Undeclared and Arrested Development, has his work cut out for him in trying to put an individual stamp on the Apatow Productions powerhouse. Between those two shows, combining awkward with sweet and getting hilarious as a result must be his bread-and-butter. He certainly made it look like it here.

Admit it -- you're glad you got up from your computer and went to see this one, aren't you? I'm going to see you on the street tomorrow in your McLovin'* tee. I'd suggest quoting it, but it was so profane that it had different lines just for the ads. Let's just nod and giggle in that insider way that makes people want to know what we are on about. If we do it just right, we can revive the teen comedy and bin those [Blank] Movies that have been masquerading in their place. A-

*The best part is the apostrophe.

Pop Culture Round-Up

"He's gone completely awesome with power." If, for some crazy reason, you didn't want to see Superbad before, I don't know how you could resist after that interview.

This movie is so ridiculous, but I was still like, "Mmm, Colin Firth makes a dreamy general," by the end of the trailer. Don't get me started on how far off it is from any known history, though.

How 'bout the problem, Belinda, is the fact that no one's made a good romantic comedy in years? As in, one worth sitting through. So take you sexism and shove it.

Hmmm - "The link between real and pretend violence has been so completely severed that some of the ability of movies to offer a critical perspective — to elicit thought as well as gasps and chuckles — has been lost."

Noel Murry makes me feel a bit nostalgic for the 80s into-the-night movies.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

RE-view! How I do love to re-view, my friends.

Now, I know people who aren't particularly interested in watching a movie more than once. They've seen it, so they know what's going to happen, and that somehow means that they won't enjoy it as much as the second time 'round. To be honest, I've never really understand that line of reasoning. By all means, don't watch it again the very next day, but, if months or years slip by, I'd wager that you may have forgotten a thing or two.

While I may not have forgotten the general plot, there were plenty of hilarious lines in this picture that hadn't stuck in my mind to tickle my fancy during this viewing, like "I'm not made of eyes!," "The little hand says it's time to rock and roll," and "You wanna be a big cop in a small town? Fuck off up the model village."

Oddly enough, the gore got to me when I watched Shaun of the Dead the second and third times, but the ridiculous gore only struck me as funny this time around. It was strange -- I felt like I laughed at completely different things when I saw the movie again. I found it especially funny to learn that many of Danny's (Nick Frost) lines were written for a love interest named Victoria only to cut her character out. Besides, the chemistry between Frost and Simon Pegg can't be beat.

I love the way that Edgar Wright uses quick cuts and sound effects to make mundane tasks, like fingerprinting or paper work, seem far more exciting than they ever would be. I love that they would get sent to capture a missing swan. I love the way the movie circles back around on itself, positioning the final showdown as a recreation of Nicholas' first jog through town. I'm definitely sticking with my original assessment: A

Rescue Dawn (2006)

Short: Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale) is shot down over Laos during his first mission in the early days of the Vietnam War. Taken into a POW camp, he meets Gene (Jeremy Davies), Duane (Steve Zahn), Phisit (Abhijati Jusakul), and Procet (Lek Chaiyan Chunsuttiwat). Insistent that they find out a way out, Dieter leads the prisoners in an ill-fated escape.

I was about to say something like, "It's all true, too," but I remembered that Slate article and hesitated. Instead I'll say that it's based on a true story.

While Bale's accent's a bit spotty (it really only sounded like a light German accent in one line near the end), every other element of his performance is spot on. Bale gives Dieter just enough charisma so that his overwhelming need to survive easily infects the rest of the prisoners who had obviously given up long before he arrived.

The finest point of their defeatism is drawn between Gene, who has convinced himself that they will be released, and Duane (an emaciated Zahn, face hidden under a shaggy beard and long hair), who has withdrawn from the rest of the prisoners. Duane finds his lost hope in Dieter, and Zahn heartbreakingly allows a light to slowly creep back into Duane's eyes only to have it snuffed out by the harsh conditions of the merciless jungle during the rainy season.

It is to writer-director Werner Herzog's credit that his decision to stay away from the prisoners' inner lives seems like both a blessing and a curse. A lesser film would have had an early scene between Dieter and his briefly mentioned fiancé or had him carry around a photo of her in order to provide suitable motivation enabling the audience to understand his astonishing desire to escape in the face of so many obstacles. Even so, Herzog goes too far in the other direction: he includes the story as to why little Dieter needed to fly in the first place, but he gives us no real indication of what keeps Dieter or the rest of the men going. He doesn't even tell us if Dieter's fiancé remained true in the closing credits. Instead, Herzog dedicates those moments to Dieter's career in aviation.

When Herzog listened but decided not to include the audio tape of the deaths of Timothy Treadwell and Amie Huguenard in Grizzly Man, it made him seem thoughtful and compassionate. I believe it is the same qualities that lead Herzog to pull away in this picture when another director would push in for the all-too-important close-up. Unfortunately, this decision also keeps the audience at arm's length.

The film is compelling and the performances gripping, but there's always something in the way to prevent the viewer from truly becoming involved with these men. Hey, at least we got another great score from Klaus Badelt. B+

The King of Cups expects a picnic. But this is not his birthday.

It is, however, my birthday. Like so many of you, I often wonder what I can get the birthday girl or boy that's easy to find, under $5, and has a little something for me, too. Well, kids, look no further. Elfin April has come up with the perfect way to celebrate her birthday. Here's the two easy steps:

1. Go to Dairy Queen

2. Buy a blizzard.

See how easy that was! You get an ice creamy treat, and a portion of the proceeds goes toward the Children's Miracle Network. How great is that?

Sunshine (2007)

Brief: A team of astronauts and scientists (Cliff Curtis, Cillian Murphy, Michelle Yeoh, Hiroyuki Sanada, Rose Byrne, Benedict Wong, Chris Evans, and Troy Garrity) are sent on a last hope mission to restart the dying sun.

No, really. There's not much more to the plot than that. I mean, I could run through what everyone does specifically, but I'm not sure about a couple of them.

To be honest, I didn't think I was going to bother with this movie, as the trailer I had repeatedly seen had nothing else in mind than making a crappy movie seem better than it was. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. Then the reviews came in, and they were mostly positive. Then someone said, "Might as well," and I thought, "Why not?" After all, I liked what Murphy, screenwriter Alex Garland, and director Danny Boyle did with zombies. And I don't even like horror movies.

While I did catch a few references to 2001, I was more tuned in to the refs to the Heroes eclipse/eye and the Flight of the Conchord's "Bowie's in Space." I'm not sure either one of those were intentional, and I especially doubt that Boyle, who wanted the golden spacesuits to be memorable, wanted me to start singing.

More than anything, though, this movie put me in mind of another deeply personal (partial) space epic: The Fountain. Rather than test the bounds of love and subsequent devotion as did Aronofsky, Boyle and Garland instead test the individual's fidelity to a cause. They set up a contrast between the crews of the Icarus I and II, pitting at first the desires of the individual against the salvation of humanity and slowly pared it down to an one-on-one showdown.

While Aronofsky used his triptych to bind together a bewitching, if befuddling, love story that spanned the ages, Boyle and Garland tell their story straight, giving ample time to their supporting characters (particularly to a well tuned performance by Evans). Even so, Murphy's Capa is the only character whose motivations, dreams, and personal life get any real attention. It's on the strength of his performance and character development that this movie succeeds.

You know, I felt like I knew what I was getting myself into when I walked into the theatre. For the most part, I was right. But even with the easy to read plot, this movie still had a few surprises. Good for it. B

Pop Culture Round Up

I see you, and I raise you Caché, an opening sequence so initially banal that the static cam slowly induces the squirming uncomfortable feeling that lays oppressively over the rest of the film.


I haven't seen many, but the first three put a smile on my face.


I'm not sure what to make of this. It could end up being great.


I mostly agree, although I take slight umbrage with No. 5. It's a good thing that this looks so delightful, though.


I ♥ Bret.


I know this isn't the first nor will it be the last, but I really like what Noel Murray has to say after the deaths of Antonioni and Bergman on Monday.

A History of Violence (2005)

Short: Small town diner owner Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) defends his diner in a robbery and ends up a minor celebrity, to the equal delight and chagrin of his family (wife Maria Bello, son Ashton Holmes, daughter Heidi Hayes). His act attracts the attention of a mob family, who send in Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), convinced that Tom is one of their own.

Can I tell you that when this movie first came out, I didn't get the title at all? Even though I now realize that it means a history of violence in the sense that a person has been violent in his or her past, at the time I got all A Brief History of Time on it, thinking that the movie was going to cleverly show me how violence develops in a person's life over time. That's not what happens here, but I still think that would be an interesting watch.

As with all of director David Cronenberg's work, the movie concentrates on the nexus of sex and violence, bookended by two very different sex scenes between Mortensen and Bello. I appreciate the way the sex was not only integrated into but also integral to understanding the character development.* Unlike, say, Cronenberg's Crash, a movie both senseless and plot-less, which seemed to be a collection of sex scenes and car crashes strung together with no rhyme or reason.**

*Actually, come to think of it, I feel like it's been a long time since I saw a movie with a completely gratuitous sex scene. Either I've just stopped watching that kind of movie (erm, action movies of the 80s and 90s?), or they've finally gone the way of the dodo. Oh! 300! Wait, that was more gratuitously nude and graphic than it was plain gratuitous. Aw, crap. Um, Planet Terror? Okay, now I feel like I am going to miss the completely gratuitous sex scene.

**No, no, I know that's what the movie was about. I'm asking, "Why?"

I've done Crash, I've done Cronenberg's Oedipal Spider, and now I've done Violence. I've picked up bits and pieces of eXistenZ, and I am still working my way up to Dead Ringers. And here's the thing: I don't get Cronenberg. Either that or I just don't like him. On a personal level, I don't particularly care about the relationship between sex and violence, but I'd like to think that if his films were more relatable, then I would care for at least as long as the running time. I hear that I would like him or at least understand his movies better if I saw some of Cronenberg's earlier works, like Videodrone or Scanners, but nothing in what I have seen makes me want to put in the effort.

I did like Mortensen, as well as Bello, and particularly Mortensen and Bello together. They create a lived-in intimacy that actually feels intimate, unlike the sniping that so often passes for intimacy in movies and on television today. Bello makes everything Edie goes through as she comes to terms with who her husband really is (spoiler!) painful and believable, and it can be shattering to watch.

But I already knew that Tom would turn out to be Joey, and, watching the movie, there was never a real possibility that it would turn out any other way. Josh Olson, who adapted the graphic novel for the screen, did a great job of pacing the way Joey managed to creep back into Tom's life after he had worked so hard to keep Joey down, but somehow it didn't lend the movie the dramatic tension it needed. If anything, it was the final scene at the dinner table that contained the movie's most tense moment.

If you can't manage to wring a little tension out of a secret identity and fratricide, what does that say? B