Something's Missing

I still got some movies left to review from the 2011 Nantucket Film Festival (and that’s not necessarily a bad thing). “The Lie” is a (relatively) new movie from writer-director Joshua Leonard (who you might know from “The Blair Witch Project”) and co-stars Mark Webber (who you might also know from “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World”) and Jess Weixler (who you will know from “Free Samples” which comes out later this year). It’s a story that we all know, a man tells a lie to get out of work for the day and his life dramatically changes as a result.

It is by no means a bad movie, but equally it is by no means a great one either. At times the film does seem a little slow, but that isn’t what holds it back. The acting is decent and a surprise cameo from Alia Shawkat (Arrested Development) made my day. In fact, Leonard who participated in a Q&A afterwards really loves the project and it shows. Technically it is a good film, but the whole time it is just missing something that stops it from being great. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it is one of those movies that feel like if you could change one thing about it, it would be a festival and indie standout.

And speaking of the Q&A afterwards, Leonard did a great job and seemed to have a lot of fun with this movie, but I don’t know if it’s just Nantucket or film festivals as a whole, but the majority of those in attendance are the kind of people that want to be movie buffs and think they are, but are too thick and pretentious to ever be. Yes, I know how incredibly stupid and pretentious I sound, now, by saying that, but it’s true! Seriously, I apologize to Joshua Leonard for some of the questions he had to endure (including some that weren’t questions at all, just criticisms of the movie and what they would change about it). And I think I speak for Leonard and myself when I say, if they think they could make a better movie, go out and do it! But I don’t think they can.

Stole Me Away

The 2011 Nantucket Film Festival has come to a close, but it was a good week while it lasted. Standouts included “Cars 2”, “Being Elmo” and of course the All-Star Comedy Round Table presented by Ben Stiller with Seth Meyers, Jerry Seinfeld, Colin Quinn and Aziz Ansari. One film that managed to slip under the radar was the astonishingly beautiful “Thief”, a short film about a boy who meets Saddam Hussein in 1959 and then once again forty years later when the two are old men.

The short is directed by Julian A. Higgins and written by Higgins and Matthew Wieland. No other film had me as deeply involved as this the entire festival. During the climax of the short (again, the climax of the short) I could barely breathe with excitement over the intensity of the film. A product of the American Film Institute, Higgins is a skilled filmmaker with only one feature length film and one other short to his name before tackling this project. Higgins handles tension in film with great aplomb and the sense of urgency and tension created in the climax of “Thief” reminded me of the feeling felt at times in Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker” (coincidentally, both films take place in Iraq).

If you are attending a festival where “Thief” is screening or have the opportunity to view it, do so. It is a gem of a film and I cannot wait for more from Mr. Julian A. Higgins.

The Name's Mater, Tow Mater

Pixar is back (as they are every summer now) with their sequel to the highly successful and critically lauded “Cars”. The whole gang is back with a few additions. Owen Wilson and Larry the Cable Guy return as Lightning McQueen and Mater, respectively, and Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer and Eddie Izzard have been added to the impressive cast. Here’s the deal, Lightning McQueen is about to take the summer off racing and return to Radiator Springs when he’s challenged to a “World Grand Prix” by a flashy Italian racecar. Lightning and Mater (with a few other Radiator Springs residents in tow) jet off to Japan, Italy and England to take part in the race. While in Japan, however, Mater is mistaken for a world-class secret agent by Finn McMissile (voiced by Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (voiced by Emily Mortimer). Without giving too much away, it becomes more of a spy movie with races in the background and a buddy movie between Lightning and Mater.

One of my favorite parts of this movie is the ability to explore the Cars world much more than we did in the original. The artists at Pixar did a tremendous job of creating real world locations in their digital format. It is fun to see how all the Cars inventions work, whether it is the bathrooms, the restaurants, the hotels, the planes because honestly, I was wondering how they did so much without hands in the first one. (Also, speaking of the Pixar world, during the Paris scene, keep a lookout for a shout out to another Pixar movie.)

It’s being released in 3D and IMAX, but I’m not sure how much more that will add to the movie. It was good enough in plain old 2D, but I could see the 3D depth technique that Pixar has perfected adding to the numerous racing and chase sequences. Either way, it’s Pixar so of course it’s good, and it’s definitely worth a trip to the theater to see it.

I was lucky enough to catch "Cars 2" at a screening at the the Nantucket Film Festival with Ben Queen, the screenwriter, in attendance. In a Q&A afterwards he really demonstrated the love that went into this movie and the immense attention to detail on the project. Illuminating on the pixar process he said that they do not focus on writing a movie towards children or adults, that thought does not even cross their mind while making the movie. What they do is make the movie they want to see. And that's awesome.

The Tourism Industry Is Suffering

Usually when a movie is bad it’s easiest to blame the studio for whatever reason; they didn’t allow the director creative control, the budget was too small. Unfortunately for writer-director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck this is simply not the case (on a side note, I think von Donnersmarck also wins the award for worst name in Hollywood). I was really excited about this movie, Angelina Jolie at one point or another was a respected actress and who doesn’t love Johnny Depp? It was a big let down when I finally watched it and as much as I didn’t want to admit it, it’s pretty bad.

The direction is terrible, I mean, it takes something special to make Johnny Depp look like a bad actor and von Donnersmarck has it. Set in Venice, it is clear that von Donnersmarck has seen "The Italian Job" and tries to imitate several sequences but he really did not capitalize on shooting his movie in one of the most beautiful cities in the world. But forget von Donnersmarck, every so often there is a writer-director that tries to be artsy but in reality is just supremely awful but somehow continues to make movies (Dito Montiel comes to mind as well) and there's nothing we can do about them. The real question is why Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie agreed ot be in this movie. Sometimes the paycheck is just that big, but generally Depp picks excellent movies and even his not so great choices (Charlie And The Chocolate Factory) turn out okay. Angelina Jolie I don't get. How can Brad Pitt be choosing movies as good as "The Tree of Life" and the forthcoming "Moneyball" while Jolie is starring in "The Tourist" and "Wanted"? Well, whatever I say isn't going to change her decisions, so let's just forget it. And let's just forget this movie ever happened, I think it's the best decision at this point.

A Big Movie

Terrence Malick has a made a big movie with “The Tree of Life”. It’s big in its imagery, themes, performances; even the little details are big. But what else is to be expected from a movie that is about the creation of the world?

Some critics will argue that the majority of the opening is a glorified program that would be better placed on the Discovery Channel than in a movie theater. What these critics have wrong is that the Discovery Channel has never produced something as beautiful and as well done as this movie, which could be considered as Terrence Malick’s masterpiece. The problem with stating your opinion on this movie is that it is the type that if you like it, people will call you a pompous and pretentious asshole, but if you do not like it then you are an idiot and just did not “get it.” So what am I? Well, I guess you would have to say that I’m a pretentious asshole because I loved it. “The Tree of Life” is a gorgeous, wonderful film that despite containing the grandest themes of love and life is anchored into personal and human connections through the riveting performances of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain.

I know that it’s not in too many theaters (I made an hour commute into Boston to watch it in the only theater that’s screening it in Massachusetts, and likely New England) but if it is at all possible make sure you see it while it is in theaters. There is something magical about this movie and it is simply awe-inspiring to see it on the big screen. It is movies like this that make me so angry that James Cameron’s “Avatar” was as successful as it was. “The Tree of Life” will make a fraction of what “Avatar” made at the box office, but the true value of the film is infinitely greater.

Kristen Wiig, I love You, But..

Disclaimer: I love Kristen Wiig. Yes, I ma now groan when I see Target Lady or Penelope, but the first six or seven times they did those skits I fell off the couch laughing every time. I'm the kid who watches "Saturday Night Live" when it airs and then gets annoyed when my friends bring up the sketches three weeks later. On paper, I should love "Bridesmaids". But I don't. And here's two reasons why:

1. I'm not a girl. I think this is the main issue for me and personally I feel that this movie was important for the same reason. Women needed to prove they're funny again. Tin Fey is the only one people ever think about with Ellen DeGeneres stuck in daytime television and Amy Poehler hidden in the underrated "Parks and Recreation". Just like women needed someone to stand behind in comedy they also needed some bit of toilet humor that it was socially acceptable to laugh at. At least, that's the only reason I can think of including the scene at the dress fitters.

2. I could barely sit through all two hours with this movie and watch Kristen Wiig's character self-destruct like she does. Some may argue that that didn't worry them because it's a comedy and therefore there's no reason to worry, everything was guaranteed to turn out well. Well, I disagree, her character was so self-destructive I honestly couldn't believe her character was real anymore and that everything would turn out all right.

Yes, it has some funny parts and I really, really wanted to like it. I just couldn't.

X-Men from the 60s

I really suck at posting on a regular basis and I'm making a serious effort now of turning that around. I've seen a s*** ton of movies the past week so hopefully that will help!

Let's start with the most recent superhero movie (and I'm not counting Green Lantern, because well-to be completely honest, it looks awful and a movie entirely done with CGI is not my cup of tea) so I'm obviously talking about X-Men: First Class. I, myself, am not a big superhero/comic book kind of guy, but the current crop of Superhero movies usually draw one or two big names (Iron Man, The Dark Knight, etc.) and that's enough to get me to watch it (plus they're generally pretty kick ass. The X-Men trilogy marathon on FX last week, my newfound love for Jennifer Lawrence, combined with my admiration for James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender was enough to get me to see it opening night.

X-Men: First Class is perfect for the average movie goer and even better for anyone who has seen the other X-Men movies. I'm not entirely familiar with the mythology of the characters so any references to other parts of the franchise I completely eat up. In fact, Wolverine's cameo had my brother laughing for a whole five minutes after it happened. Not to mention, it's a pretty movie (and the 1960s is just a fun time to place a movie). But I'm not going to waste your time with my mediocre opinion on the superhero aspect, instead just read this (incredible) article from Darren Franich over at Entertainment Weekly.

I will leave with one last thought of why this movie works so well at this current period we live in and why it connects with so many audiences today, despite it taking place in the 1960s. Everything about this movie is a flawless combination of 1960s culture and culture in the 2000s. The wardrobe, technology, even characters habits find the even ground between the two and at the same time create a nostalgia for that time that we can all understand from our vantage point in the present.

Every Teardop Is A Waterfall

I just can't help myself from loving this song.

And by this song I mean "Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall" by Coldplay. It is the lead single from their new album (but there is some debate over that.. there's a possibility it's just a one off for the festivals this summer). It's got single written all over it, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. ETIAW is the perfect song to be blasting in your car with the windows rolled down this summer and that's fully what I expect to happen.

But everything about this song on paper means that I shouldn't like it. Do the lyrics really make much sense? No, not really. The title sure doesn't fit the song at all. There are a whopping total of two (yes, two) chords for the entire song (Dsus2 and A, if I'm not mistaken). The only redeeming value that this song has is that crazy guitar riff, but even that can only take it so far.

So why do I love it? It's infectious and happy, and who couldn't use some more of that in their lives? It's definitely going to be an anthem for the summer, just like "Viva La Vida" was back in 2008. But more than anything: it's Coldplay.

Why Hype Sucks

I love movies. There I said it, and I doubt that it comes as much of a surprise. The first thing I do when I go on my computer is head to IMDb and check out any new news or trailers that they've posted. So naturally, I get sucked up into all the hype and even create some of it with my own friends. But I need to stop.

After the whole "Sucker Punch" fiasco, where I totally blew the whole movie out of proportion, I really have to slow down my endorsement and excitement over movies. With "X-Men: First Class" coming out on Friday and "Cowboys & Aliens" later this summer my willpower is going to be pushed to the test. In order to do that I just have to remind myself how useless and even negative hype can be.

First, for myself, I know that I'm going to see the movie and there's no need to convince myself that it's going to be amazing and I need to see it, I know I'll see it anyways. But the more important fact that I need to remind myself of is that when I build movies up, there's no way that it will meet expectations. When I'm watching the movie I'm only thinking about how I need to like the movie or all the reasons why from the advertising and hype that I should like the movie. And it doesn't matter what the movie is actually like, it's a completely mental and psychological game at that point.

I don't know, sorry if you had to read all this. I'm just thinking out loud.