Movie Review The Killer

The Killer (2023) 

Directed by David Fincher

Written by Andrew Kevin Walker 

Starring Michael Fassbender, Tilda Swinton

Release Date November 10th, 2023 

Published? 

Is David Fincher's The Killer a comedy? I'm genuinely asking this question because I think Fincher is messing with us. The Killer is oddly sly, talky, and carries an almost entirely ironic needle drop soundtrack of songs by The Smiths, that most melancholy, death-obsessed, of pop groups. A killer who relaxes by listening to The Smiths is an irresistible comic idea. I asked my music obsessed sister about making a movie about a contract killer with a soundtrack full of Smiths songs and she responded, not knowing I was talking about the new David Fincher movie, 'That's a bit too spirited and haunted of an idea. The Smiths are 'a bit too acutely perfect for it.' 

Putting aside for a moment that The Smiths lead singer, Morrissey, is now a toxic waste dump of a human being, the soundtrack does feel like a bit of a joke. That's especially true when you combine the soundtrack with Michael Fassbender's insanely relaxed performance that slowly starts to unravel as his nameless killer is forced to go on the run and hunt down killers who are now hunting him after he botches a job in Paris in the opening 'chapter' of the movie. The needle drops are mostly early in The Killer but they have a perversely comic edge to them. 

As Fassbender delivers an inner monologue to us in the audience about his work as a killer for hire, Fincher punctuates the scene by raising and dropping the volume on the Smiths' song "How Soon is Now." Pointedly and purposefully, after Fassbender's killer says "I serve no God or country, I fly no flag." The volume rises on How Soon is Now as Morrissey sings "I go about things the wrong way." It's as if the music Fincher chose for this scene is intended as a critique of his main character. This motif repeats moments later when Fassbender intones his personal thesis statement "I...Don't...Give...A...F***" the soundtrack rises again and Morrissey sings, as if in conversation with the movie, "I am human and I need to be loved." 

Do I think this is Fincher saying that a hardened, sociopathic murderer just needs to be loved? No, I think, in the world and mind of David Fincher, this is humor. This is Fincher mocking the idea that someone this cold blooded, this seemingly without remorse, could be saved by a good hug and a cuddle. That's what I thought when the scene was playing out anyway. By the end of the movie, Fincher seems to have come around on the idea of the transformative power of love, at least a little, at least as a way of ending the movie. 

There are other elements of dark and twisted humor in The Killer. After his failed shooting at the start of the movie, as Fassbender is riding a scooter to get away from the scene of the crime, Fassbender says the line 'WWJWBD, What Would John Wilkes Booth Do?' Is the line funny? Kind of, at the odd angle that David Fincher comes to it, it's kind of funny and Fassbender's relaxed, calm delivery of the line almost feels like he's acknowledging the dark comedy of such a statement. I am only amused by the line as I sit here, while watching it, it rang a bell in my mind that it was an odd statement but I quickly moved on from it. 

Click here for my full length review at Geeks.Media. 

Movie Review Asteroid City

Asteroid City (2023) 

Directed by Wes Anderson 

Written by Wes Anderson 

Starring Jason Schwartzman, Edward Norton, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Hanks, Steve Carell, Tilda Swinton, Willem Dafoe, Jeffrey Wright

Release Date June 23rd, 2023 

Published June 23rd, 2023 

I adore the work of writer-director Wes Anderson. As a film critic with more than 20 years of experience writing about movies, Anderson's work has an unusual appeal for me. I see so many movies that look the same, go for the same goals, demonstrate the same filmmaking technique, and though they can be quite good or not good, the sameness of most of what I see becomes monotonous. Then, along comes a Wes Anderson movie like an alien from another planet. Instead of striving to place his characters in a place we can recognize and identify with them in a typical fashion, Anderson's style creates a surreal reality all its own. 

In his first feature film, Bottle Rocket, the characters were colorful and odd amid a realistic landscape. Since then, The Royal Tenenbaums began a turn for Anderson that led to more and more of a surrealist perspective. Anderson is a fan of artifice, and he brings artifice forward in his cinematography and production design. In his newest, remarkably ingenious work, called Asteroid, the surrealist production design is intended to logically marry the stage and film. It's as if Wes Anderson wanted to adapt a play into a movie but wanted to bring both the play and the movie forward at once. It's an exceptionally silly, funny, brilliant move. 

Trying to describe the plot of Asteroid City is rather pointless. Wes Anderson isn't so much interested in his plot. Rather, it's a Wes Anderson style of comedy, a series of odd, awkward, and often various funny scenes that may or may not be moving forward a plot. On the surface, we are following photographer and family man, Augie Steenbeck (Jason Schwartzman), as he takes his kids across the country and their car breaks down in the oddball small town of Asteroid City. Luckily, they were on their way here anyway as Augie's oldest son, Woodrow (Jake Ryan), is to compete for a science scholarship. 

Asteroid City is the real star of Asteroid City. At the center of the town, which is made up of, perhaps four locations, is a giant crater where an asteroid landed in 3200 B.C. The town grew up around the asteroid as scientists and military men seek to understand the asteroid. Tilda Swinton is the top scientist and Jeffrey Wright is the military man. Things get crazy when an alien comes to Earth and takes the asteroid. The arrival of an alien causes the town, and all of its visitors, including Augie and his four kids, celebrity actress, Midge Campbell (Scarlett Johannson) and her genius daughter, Dina (Grace Edwards). 

Augie begins a tentative flirtation with Midge, their tiny cabins are right next door to each other, and Woodrow starts a budding relationship with Dinah as they work with their fellow genius kids, played by Sophia Lillis and Ethan Josh Lee to study the alien while also making sure the rest of the world knows that the alien exists, much to the chagrin of the military and their parents. The genius kids also work with Tilda Swinton's scientist to try and determine where the alien went and whether or not the alien is dangerous or not. 

Find my full length review at Geeks.Media 

Movie Review Okja

Okja (2017) 

Directed by Bong Joon Ho

Written by Bong Joon Ho 

Starring Tilda Swinton, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ahn Seo Hun, Paul Dano 

Release Date June 28th, 2017

Okja is a movie that defies simple description. On the surface, the film resembles a kiddie flick with a friendly monster and a little girl on an adventure to overcome a group of simple-minded adults trying to split them apart or exploit them. The surface of Okja does not do the film justice. Okja is truly one of the most daring and original films of 2017 from one of the master directors of our time, the brilliant Bong Joon-ho.

Find my full length review at Geeks.Media 

Movie Review Suspiria

Suspiria (2018) 

Directed by Luca Guadagnino 

Written by David Kajganich

Starring Dakota Johnson, Tilda Swinton, Chloe Grace Moretz,Mia Goth, Angela Winkler

Release Date October 26th, 2018 

Published December 15th, 2018

I’m embarrassed to say that I am completely defeated by Suspiria. I have no idea what this movie is intending to say. I recognize that the filmmaking is lush and gorgeous and a few scenes in the movie are striking and memorable, but I cannot, for the life of me, find a point in the fine filmmaking. Suspiria isn’t scary enough for full on horror, despite some high level gore, and it doesn’t appear to have much of a political message. So what the hell did I just watch? 

Suspiria stars Dakota Johnson as Susie Bannion, a former Quaker turned wannabe dancer who has moved to Berlin to study under the famed Madame Blanc (Tilda Swinton). Susie has done this on spec, she is not even guaranteed the chance to try out. The school year has already begun and there may not even be space. But, Susie takes the chance nevertheless and something in her dance strikes a chord so deep in Madame Blanc that Susie earns her way in. 

Meanwhile, in a prologue, we’ve met Patricia (Chloe Grace Moretz), a deeply troubled young girl who is visiting her psychiatrist, Dr Klemperer (also played by Tilda Swinton under heavy and convincing, old man makeup). The doctor believes that Patricia’s rants about witches at her dance school, the same one that Susie is to attend, are delusions. However, when Patricia goes missing, Dr Klemperer is forced to look at her delusions in a different manner. 

Caught in the midst of all of this, the disappearance of Patricia and the arrival of Susie, is Sara (Mia Goth). Sara was Patricia’s closest friend and has been tasked by Madame Blanc with helping Susie get situated, in Patricia’s former room no less. Sara slowly becomes suspicious and her suspicions drive much of the plot in the second act or is it the 4th? The film is divided into multiple parts with a prologue and an epilogue and an epic length, nearly an hour longer than Dario Argento’s original Suspiria. 

The style of Suspiria is top notch. The gorgeous deep focus cinematography of Call Me By Your Name cinematographer, Sayombhu Mukdeeprom takes a few notes from Argento’s original, especially with the use of the color red, but has its own unique beauty in the remarkable angles and striking use of light and dark. I have no problems whatsoever with the technical side of director Luca Guadagnino’s production. 

The issues in Suspiria arise when I attempt to bring the film into some kind of greater focus. I am trying to extract a point. One fellow critic I read said the decision to set the film in Berlin, the original was set in Freiburg, Germany, was intended to evoke the division of the city after World War 2 juxtaposed with the division of the self, i.e the public and the private, the duality at the heart of so many of us, the side we show others and the side we keep to ourselves. 

I kind of see that but it doesn’t help me understand the film's final act of blood and dance. I genuinely have no clue what happened in the final act of the movie. I could describe it in full spoiler mode because I don’t know what I would be spoiling if anything. The final blood-soaked scenes are striking but what they have to do with anything either in the story the film is telling in text or metaphorically in subtext. 

I’m embarrassed because I am usually rather adept at sussing out metaphors and deeper meanings, it’s kind of my thing. If I can’t suss one directly, I can usually assign one but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what Suspiria is intended to say about women, sexuality, dance, or witches. Maybe it’s not intended to mean anything and is just an experiment in form. If that’s the case, it’s not very clear from the characters who seem to be striding toward some kind of point, even if I can’t seem to follow it. 

Movie Review: The Chronicles of Narnia The Lion Witch and the Wardrobe

The Chronicles of Narnia The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

Directed by Andrew Adamson 

Written by Ann Peacock, Andrew Adamson 

Starring Liam Neeson, Tilda Swinton, James McAvoy 

Release Date December 9th, 2005 

Published December 9th, 2005 

So much has been made of the religious elements of The Chronicles of Narnia that I expected Mel Gibson to direct it. With the films marketing campaign targeting churches and Walden Media producing, one might fairly expect a screed or religious tract. Thankfully this live action take on the epic novels of C.S Lewis is neither a screed or a tract.

In the skilled hands of director Andrew Adamson, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is an exhaustively exciting epic of wonder, imagination and technology.

Escaping the Nazi's nightly bombing raids in London, the Pevensie children, oldest son Peter (William Moseley) his brother Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and two sisters Susan (Ann Popplewell) and youngest child Lucy (Georgie Hensley) are sent to a large country estate owned by the eccentric professor Kirke (Jim Broadbent).

Trapped in this middle of nowhere mansion the children's natural curiousity leads them to search the innumerable rooms. In one room young Lucy uncovers a large wardrobe that she seeks to use as a hideout in a game of hide and seek. Once hidden in the wardrobe Lucy finds something extraordinary. The wardrobe is a portal to an alternate universe called Narnia. In her adventure Lucy meets an odd creature named Mr. Tumnus (James McAvoy) a faun, half human, half deer. Lucy bonds with Mr. Tumnus and she cannot wait to tell her brothers and sister of her discovery.

Not surprisingly, the older siblings believe that Lucy is imagining things but soon all are traveling through the wardrobe to Narnia and a meeting with destiny and prophecy. According to some helpful exposition, first from Mr. Tumnus and then from some helpful beavers voiced by Ray Winstone and Dawn French, the arrival of four human children in Narnia is a sign that will bring about the end of one hundred years of winter brought about by the evil white witch (Tilda Swinton).

The children's arrival also means the return of Narnia's rightful leader Aslan (voice of Liam Neeson). Aslan's return is met by the white witch and her army of thousands of blood thirsty half humans and other mythic creatures. Aslan's own army of similar half humans and woodland creatures meet the white witch on the field of battle and the Pevensie children must join the battle for there to be peace in Narnia.

The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is an astonishing work of tremendous imagination. All credit goes to director Andrew Adamson who brings the same sense of excitement and delight to Narnia that he brought to both of the Shrek films. Adamson directs much of Narnia as if he were directing an animated film. The same limitless creativity that animators approach their material with Adamson brings to this pseudo-live action epic.

Many films with this level of CGI work tend to forget to do the basics of filmmaking right. Adamson, however, does not fall into this trap. Each element of filmmaking from the effects to the casting is spot on. Adamson manages this massive undertaking like a veteran director, which is a tall task considering that The Chronicles of Narnia is Adamson's first live action film. Before this film his only experience came directing the Shrek films.

Given the amount of CGI effects in The Chronicles of Narnia directing a computer animated film like Shrek was actually the perfect training ground. Considering that one of the problems Adamson faced while directing Shrek 2 was rendering his cartoon characters far too realistically, the real people of Narnia must have been a breeze in comparison.

Adamson's great achievement in The Chronicles of Narnia may be his striking attention to every detail of filmmaking. With all of this technology on display Adamson never loses focus on his actors and helps, especially his young actors, to draw out exceptional performances. The difference between a good director and a great director is a command of all aspects directing and, while it may be a little premature to call Adamson a great director, The Chronicles of Narnia is a great first step toward that title.

Adamson is aided greatly by a cast of tremendous young actors who nail nearly every beat of their performances. Especially strong is young Georgie Henley as Lucy. Henley's sense of wonder is captivating and watching her eyes light up at the sight of Mr. Tumnus and the many wonders of Narnia gives you a similar excitement. This is one of the most phenomenal performances by a child actor that I have ever seen.

While the remaining Pevensie children do not stand out as well as Henley, each has their strength. Skandar Keynes captures Edmund's sniveling selfish qualities early on and manages a strong redemption as well. Ann Popplewell as Susan seems to have been the casualty of the film's runtime. The few moments that Popplewell gets to establish Susan's presence, such as strong speech over the fallen body of Aslan and a late movie turn into an action heroine, work very well.

Finally, William Mosely as the oldest Pevensie child, Peter, has arguably the most difficult of the roles. As written, Peter is solely heroic and noble with little room for much of a personality. Moseley performs well as an action hero and his bravery in the final scenes is compelling even if Peter overall is a bit on the bland side.

Arguably the films biggest challenge and it's biggest success is the computer generated Aslan voiced to perfection by Liam Neeson. Narnia writer C.S Lewis was said to be opposed to any live action movie version of his Narnia tales because of a fear that the animal characters would look foolish. Well I cannot speak for Mr. Lewis, but I can say that Aslan is rendered as realistically as technology will allow and is certainly not foolish looking. Embodied with Neeson's thoughtful fatherly tones, Aslan is a deep and integral part of what makes The Chronicles of Narnia an outstanding film.

Aslan is not the only exceptional CGI creation in The Chronicles of Narnia. The beavers who guide the children through the middle portion of the film providing wise council and important plot points are equally as well created as Aslan. Also well made are the many Centaurs, Minotaurs and other mythical creatures of Narnia. One simply cannot find enough praise for the awesome, if at times slightly overwhelming, CGI creations in The Chronicles of Narnia.

While many will distract themselves with the religious subtext of The Chronicles of Narnia, the important thing to remember is how entertaining the film is. With its epic technology, budget and runtime, Narnia bears a fair comparison to Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings trilogy and the four Harry Potter films. That Chronicles of Narnia not only stands up to such lofty comparison but exceeds, in my opinion, atleast two of the LOTR films in terms of entertainment value, is an outstanding achievement.

Yes, the religious subtext is there in The Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan's sacrificing himself to save the children is comparable to a Christ-like sacrifice. His eventual rise from the dead is obviously quite similar to the Biblical resurrection. But the subtext of The Chronicles of Narnia is only on these few occasions heavy-handed. For the most part, C.S Lewis's story is more interested in establishing its own universe and mythology. It is Narnia's own mythos that will matter as the series progresses into sequels and that will be what keeps audiences returning to it.

The Chronicles of Narnia could stand an injection of humor. At times the film takes itself far too seriously, almost to the point of parody. Thankfully, the beautifully captured images of the grandiose Narnia and the effervescent performance of Georgie Henley lighten the mood and help your imagination soar over the occasions when The Chronicles of Narnia becomes overly serious.

With Walden Media and Disney already committed to making Narnia sequels, the best review one could give The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is to say that I cannot wait for the sequel. Indeed I can say I am excited to see where director Andrew Adamson will take this other worldly adventure story, if in fact he is allowed to continues as the director.

I was not excited when I went in, I expected to be preached to. The Chronicles of Narnia does not preach or attempt to convert anyone. It is on a whole simply a very entertaining movie.

Movie Review The Chronicles of Narnia The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

The Chronicles of Narnia Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)

Directed by Michael Apted

Written by Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely, Michael Petroni

Starring Georgie Henley, Will Poulter, Skandar Keynes, Ben Barnes, Tilda Swinton

Release Date December 10th, 2010 

Published December 9th, 2010

The struggle to bring “The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” based on the 3rd book in C.S Lewis’s popular series, has been troubled not by poor creative effort but by the perils of Hollywood business. After “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe” debuted in 2005 to terrific reviews and boffo box office, “The Chronicles of Narnia” was seen by Disney and Walden Media, a Harry Potter-esque cash cow.

Then, the struggles of “Prince Caspian” began. Though the film sailed into production with writer-director Andrew Adamson having completed the screenplay while filming Lion, upon release Caspian was seen as a box office failure with a mere 141 million dollars at the North American box office.

Caspian was not helped by critics who lambasted the film as a shallow follow-up to the well liked first film in the series. Prospects for “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” ever reaching the screen seemed dim after Disney chose not to move ahead on the project in 2008. Then, miraculously, 20th Century Fox snapped the series up and set out to re-energize the franchise. Whether the effort works at the box office we will see but the artistic rebirth is accomplished as ‘Dawn Treader’ returns the magic of The “Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.”

It’s been three years since Lucy (Georgie Henley) and Edmund (Skandor Keynes) have been to Narnia, the magical realm of the regal Lion Aslan (Liam Neeson), with their brother Peter and sister Susan. The oldest of the Pevensie children have moved on (actors William Mosley and Anna Popplewell do make cameos here) while Lucy and Edmund remain in England, living with the family of their irksome cousin Eustace (Will Poulter).

While they await word of when they can rejoin their family, Lucy and Edmund also patiently await a return to Narnia where they but not their siblings can return only once more. That chance comes when a magical painting begins moving and a ship somehow appears on the horizon. Soon, the painting begins to come to life and when Eustace attempts to pull it off the wall, all three children find themselves engulfed and emerging in Narnia.

Waiting for Lucy, Edmund and Tagalong Eustace is the Dawn Treader, the first ship in the Narnian army and the current home of King Caspian (Ben Barnes). Caspian welcomes the kids aboard and an adventure begins to retrieve the Seven Lords whose magic swords will lift a curse that has plunged part of Narnia into darkness.

Alongside the main plot is also a quest to find the Utter East, the land of Aslan. Reepicheep (voice of Simon Pegg) the valiant mouse warrior hopes to voyage to Aslan’s land as his final adventure while Caspian believes he may find his father there.

Director Michael Apted, who picked up the reigns from Andrew Adamson, now an executive producer, brings a clear focus to the story of ‘Dawn Treader.” Where “Prince Caspian'' was weighed down by a great deal of exposition; so much that the film never picked up speed and prodded to a dull conclusion, “Dawn Treader” begins with a brief character reset and quickly we are aboard the glorious ship and away for adventure.

“Voyage of the Dawn Treader'' bounces swiftly from set piece to set piece with a clear eyed purpose, and is aided greatly by the best effects work of the series courtesy of Moving Picture Company and Framestore CFC, with an assist from the legendary WETA Workshop (LOTR). Michael Apted takes command of this franchise, gives it an epic scope, a sharp, dynamic look and even a surprisingly light heart.

The humor of “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” is a direct rebuke to the bullish self seriousness of the dreary “Prince Caspian.” “Son of Rambow” star Will Poulter does much of the comic heavy lifting as the nettlesome cousin Eustace. In his first Narnian outing, and possibly not his last, Poulter deftly plays Eustace’s refusal to believe what is happening around him for great laughs while setting us up for a terrific character turn with a surprisingly poignant pay off.

Much of “Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader” comes as a surprise. No, the makers have not managed to make Ben Barnes any less wooden as Caspian or made the religious overtones any less burdensome but what Michael Apted does is lessen the issues by making all around them better. Better effects, better story, better pace; just about everything in Dawn Treader is better, even than “The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.”

Yes, it is a rare occurrence but this, the third Narnia movie, is the best of the series. Top notch action and effects and a director fully in control of all the aspects of epic, popcorn moviemaking have resurrected a dying franchise. The box office will make the final decision but from an artistic perspective “The Chronicles of Narnia” have begun again and the newly in charge Mr. Apted has me anticipating another adventure in “The Silver Chair.”

Movie Review: Adaptation

Adaptation (2002)

Directed by Spike Jonze

Written by Charlie Kaufman

Starring Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, Tilda Swinton, Brian Cox 

Release Date December 6th, 2002 

Published December 6th, 2002 

Originality is a lost art in modern Hollywood. Many people would tell you that everything has been done, and, well, they are right to a point. That is where Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze come in. They take a simple setup and make it original, fresh and funny. Being John Malkovich was a wild, literal, head trip of originality and humor. Now, their new film Adaptation moves the head trip inside the mind of the writer himself. In Adaptation, Kaufman writes himself into his own screenplay and the result is a film unlike anything Hollywood has ever seen.

I spoke before of originality and interestingly enough that is where the film begins. Kaufman, as played by Nicholas Cage, is wondering to himself if has an original thought in his head as he sits at a movie pitch meeting. A studio executive, played by Tilda Swinton, is offering Kaufman the opportunity to adapt the studio's latest acquisition a book called "The Orchid Thief."

Right off the bat this could have been a scene from Robert Altman's The Player with a studio executive spouting off about how this book is going to be the studio's big prestige picture, and, indeed, the book itself sounds like a Hollywood creation. However, "The Orchid Thief" is a real book by a real author and writer for The New Yorker magazine--Susan Orlean. And, in reality, Charlie Kaufman was asked to adapt "The Orchid Thief" for the screen. We are merely in the first scene and already the film is twisting reality in knots.

We flashback from there to Susan Orlean--as played by Meryl Streep--as she researches the story of John Laroche, a real-life orchid hunter played in the film by Chris Cooper, in an Oscar-courting performance. A story in the newspaper about a guy and three Indians arrested in the Florida wetlands for poaching flowers catches Orlean's eye and she is soon in Florida meeting Laroche with the intent of writing about him in The New Yorker. The article became the book and was then snapped up by a movie studio to be made into a film.

Cut back to Charlie, who explains that he doesn't want to make this a Hollywood thing, and wants to write a film that does justice to the book. The book, however, is mostly about orchids and has no real cinematic arc. Charlie has no idea what to write, and his problems will strike a chord with anyone who has ever attempted to write something. Rewards and punishments. Excuses for writing and not writing. How the mind tends to wander off when you know you have to write something but can't. 

As I write this review I'm going on almost four days since I saw the movie; not exactly a good quick turn around. I sit and stare at the computer alternately tapping out my review in my strange hunt and peck typing style that drives my girlfriend up the wall. I write a paragraph and then wonder if my laundry is done. Another sentence and wonder if I should get a bottled water or make soup. Then I realize that I have unconsciously written myself into a review of a movie about a writer who writes himself into his own screenplay. 

Adaptation will do that to you as it twists inside itself and torturously weaves reality and fiction. Kaufman does an amazing mixing job, using real people like Orlean and Laroche and even the cast of his previous film, Being John Malkovich, and then creating a fictional twin brother who acts as his onscreen id.

Cage plays both brothers, both a technical and acting feat pulled off to perfection. Donald Kaufman seems to be the antithesis of everything Charlie stands for. Donald is a lazy layabout with an ease with woman and self image far healthier than it maybe should be. Charlie is both disgusted by Donald and envious of him. They are two sides of the same coin. Donald one day announces that he too is going to be a screenwriter and with the help of a screenwriting coach played by Brian Cox, writes a typical Hollywood schlock thriller and sells it for a million dollars. 

My impression of Donald is that he and Charlie are actually the same person and that Donald allows Charlie to express how easy it would be for him to buy into the Hollywood system. Donald's amazingly bad script is riddled with everything intelligent people despise about modern Hollywood, but, on further examination, the plot mirrors the same dynamic that plays out in Adaptation. I don't want to spoil it. You have to make the connection on your own.

Lost in all the madness onscreen is director Spike Jonze who craftily loses himself behind the camera, putting all the focus on Kaufman. It is Jonze's steadiness that draws this wildly-out-of-control film together. Jonze and Kaufman litter the film with tiny details that will have you going back to see it repeatedly.

My review is finished now I can go eat, but I better check my laundry first. Hey I wonder what's on TV.

Movie Review The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) 

Directed by David Fincher 

Written by Eric Roth 

Starring Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Mahershala Ali, Taraji P. Henson, Tilda Swinton, Juliette Binoche

Release Date December 25th, 2008

Published December 23rd, 2008

It is extraordinary what technology can do in the movies these days. In The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 45 year old Brad Pitt ages from a little old man to a youth ripe teenager before our eyes. It's stunning really and yet still remote. That is the nature of modern special effects. For all the genius and wonder, technology will never be able to replace one person relating to another on the most human levels.

Brad Pitt does what he can with the role that is given him in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. It's unfortunate that beyond the technology, there isn't a whole lot there. In 1918 a baby boy was born and seemed as if he should have died. He was aged, infirmed. He had cataracts and arthritis. He was abandoned by his father on the doorstep of an old folks home where the kindly nurse Queenie (Taraji P. Henson) took him in. He wasn't supposed to live through the night.

Several years later Benjamin is a little boy with all of the wonder of youth but he looked like a man in his 60's. When Benjamin was 13 years old he met Daisy Fuller. She was a few years younger but her keen intuition told her that Benjamin was somehow no different than herself. They became friends and every weekend, when Daisy came to visit her grandmother, they would play together.

When he turned 17 Benjamin took a job on a tugboat under Captain Mike (Jared Harris). Benjamin went all over the globe. In Russia he had his first kiss. He went on to war and eventually back to New Orleans. He and Daisy would reconnect and their love story is the centerpiece of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

The most curious thing about Benjamin Button is that nothing much interesting happens to him. Yes, he went around the world but we don't see much of his travels. We see him in Russia but most of those scenes are spent in a hotel lobby. He went to war and was part of a notably sad incident but if you are waiting to see it play out as an aspect of his life and you will be left waiting awhile.

As written, the character of Benjamin Button is a blank screen in front of which colorful characters pass and are soon forgotten. Brad Pitt's contribution is his handsome visage which begins weathered under heavy makeup and CGI and slowly becomes more perfect and handsome. I know some will not require much more of Mr. Pitt but I did. This is a character filled with possibility and Mr. Pitt doesn't seem to explore the space. He remains a blank screen, only becoming active in a few scenes where he and Cate Blanchett send each other smoldering gazes. They are smoking hot together but again, I needed something more.

Cate Blanchett on the other hand smolders and suffers and delivers the one truly in depth performance in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Under extensive amounts of makeup, Blanchett and Julia Ormond as her daughter slowly recall the story of Benjamin from his diary. Blanchett is then seen as a young ballerina with porcelain skin that would shame Edward Cullen in sunlight. Blanchett is radiant and carrying almost all of the film's dramatic burden she damn near makes the movie work. Sadly, Pitt's blank slate and a script by Eric Roth that turns Benjamin into an old man version of Forrest Gump, leaves Ms. Blanchett dancing all by herself.

Director David Fincher is an artist beyond reproach. The way he melds the CGI and the real world is astonishing. Even more impressive are the scenes he creates with little help from the computers. A scene where Ms. Blanchett is seen dancing on an empty stage while attempting to entice Benjamin into their first trust is unbelievably beautiful. It's a scene that will be part of my memory for the rest of my life, even as the movie as a whole will fade relatively quickly.

There are breathtaking images in Benjamin Button which lay the uninvolving story all the more bare. I went in hoping to get some insight into a very unique character and left knowing what I knew about Benjamin Button when I came in. He is a boy who ages backwards. That alone is notable but how does it really affect him? What is his inner life like? The screenwriters never figured that out. What's left are a series of images and colorful supporting players and little to no insight into the man whose name is in the title.

Movie Review Michael Clayton

Michael Clayton (2007) 

Directed by Tony Gilroy 

Written by Tony Gilroy 

Starring George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sidney Pollack 

Release Date September 24th, 2007 

Published September 23rd, 2007 

George Clooney has long been a movie star but I have never thought of him as much of a capital A Actor. That has changed however, thanks to his terrific performance in the flawed new thriller Michael Clayton. This John Grisham-eque legal thriller allows Clooney to flex those charismatic movie star muscles and dig into a character and give a heartfelt, conflicted and oh so believable performance.

The rich and the super-rich can sometimes find themselves in situations that even their lawyers can't get them out of. That is when they are turned over to Michael Clayton. He is 'the fixer', the guy who makes problems go away. So, when the New York law firm where Michael is in business, has a partner flip out in the middle of a deposition in an extremely important case, it's up to Michael Clayton to fix it.

The partner is Howard Eames (Tom Wilkinson) a longtime manic depressive who has gone off his meds. During a deposition in a case involving a high powered farm chemical company and a group of family farmers, Howard stripped naked and began telling one of the plaintiffs how much he loved her. Running naked through the streets, Howard claimed that the stench of his misdeeds in this case forced him to strip himself of his sins. Naturally, it falls to Michael Clayton to try and fix this situation. However, when he discovers that Howard may not be entirely nuts, Michael finds his own conscience being tested.

Michael Clayton is a flawed, near masterpiece of suspense and a story of redemption for a morally questionable character. Written and directed by Tony Gilroy, with a career best performance by George Clooney, Michael Clayton suffers slightly from being overlong, just over two hours, and with just a few too many of those convenient moments where characters perform unmotivated actions solely for the purpose of furthering the plot.

A few convenient moments however, cannot upend the mesmerizing performance of George Clooney on who's work alone Michael Clayton is a must see. Clooney has always been a "movie star" but in Michael Clayton he is an actor and he delivers a tough, vulnerable character at the end of his rope. Self loathing replacing his usual confidence, Clooney's Clayton isn't quite down on his luck but he's on his way. Clooney nails both Clayton's desperation and his attempt at redemption.

One of the things I found interesting but mostly unsatisfying about Michael Clayton was the odd bit of optimism in the story. The film is about an evil corporation that will do anything to anyone in order to hide their misdeeds and the crusading lawyer who goes to any length to punish them. Though people are murdered and others are threatened the film tries to have it both ways in terms of cynical corporate misdeeds and the optimistic idea of how that evil is punished. Myself, I would have preferred an equally cynical solution to such cynical action. As it is, it works well enough, especially because of the way Clooney carries it all off, but a darker more malevolent solution might have played stronger.

Another quibble I have with Michael Clayton is a little too much tell and not enough show. We are told that Michael is a fixer for rich clients in a bind. The description conjures images of backroom deals, payoffs, and shady characters. And yet, we never actually see Michael in action. We are told how good he is, how he can slither out of any situation but that's it, we are just told. What we see is Michael lamenting his place in the world but without the example of why he so laments and it's less effective.

All of that said, Michael Clayton is solidly entertaining despite its flaws. George Clooney has never been this good. His movie star-ness in check, Clooney shows the kind of talent that people have underestimated throughout his career. Tough but vulnerable, charismatic without being overwhelming, Clooney is mesmerizing in a role that should earn him an Oscar nomination. On Clooney's performance alone Michael Clayton is worth the price of admission.

Movie Review: Burn After Reading

Burn After Reading (2008) 

Directed by The Coen Brothers 

Written by The Coen Brothers 

Starring George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Richard Jenkins 

Release Date September 12th, 2008 

Published September 11th, 2008 

As a way of cleaning the fictional blood off their hands, Joel and Ethan Coen followed their Oscar nominated, blood-soaked masterpiece Fargo with the brilliant, offbeat comedy The Big Lebowski, a movie so wonderfully fun and gentle it could heal even the darkest mind. This same pattern plays out for the Coen's again with the back to back, triumph of opposites, No Country For Old Men and Burn After Reading. After going dark and broody, for an Oscar win, the Coen's did another 180 and deliver arguably their silliest, giddiest effort to date.

In Washington D.C a CIA analyst, Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich), has just been fired. In a fit of pique he tells his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) he wasn't fired he quit. Osbourne plans on writing his memoirs, though his wife wonders, to his face, who would want to read that? Naturally, the wife is cheating on him. She is cheating with someone sunnier and far less complicated, a doofus federal marshal named Harry (George Clooney) who likes to jog after sex.

On a different planet yet somehow the same movie are Linda (Frances McDormand) and Chad (Brad Pitt). Best friends and employees of the same cookie cutter franchise gym, Linda is desperate for plastic surgery that is beyond both her means and necessity and Chad is basically along for the ride, his good nature being all that bonds him to the story.

Banging these two universes together is the discovery of a computer disc at the gym that contains Osbourne's memoirs filled with CIA secrets that Linda and Chad believe will be worth money to Cox and if not Cox maybe the Russians. Watching everything in permanent apoplexy are the CIA brass played by David Rasche and J.K Simmons who manages to bring his dad from Juno and his Spider-Man newspaper boss together for another brilliant supporting turn.

The bonds of these characters deepen in ways that are entirely contrived but who cares when we are all having such a good time. Joel and Ethan Coen establish a tone of such wonderful goofball whimsy in Burn After Reading that one forgets to fact check the movie as it goes along to make sure everything makes sense.

I have a theory about the Coen Brothers and George Clooney. After three movies together in which Clooney has become more and more of a doofus, it's clear the Coen's enjoy taking one of the world's handsomest actors and making him a fool. Like the kids picked on in High School taking their psychic revenge on the most popular kid in school, the Coen's appear to revel in making Clooney the fool and he appears to be having a ball doing it. 

The Coens make similar magic with Brad Pitt, taking another of People Magazine's Sexiest Men Alive and turning him into a himbo doofus to wonderful comic effect. Brad Pitt is hilarious as an airhead who has no awareness of his own ludicrous attractiveness. There is a subtext to the way the Coen's use both Clooney and Pitt, cleverly twisting the cool, charismatic personas of both actors into something wild, strange and hilarious all at once. 

Burn After Reading is a good natured, if occasionally dark and violent, little comedy. The Coen's can't seem to escape a slight body count and yet they still manage to keep things on a ludicrously, deliriously bright and funny tone. Burn After Reading has some faulty bits of logic and a couple of plot holes and contrivances that would come to light under more scrutiny but who cares. The point of Burn After Reading is just being hilarious. 

The Coen Brothers do such a terrific job of distracting us with goofiness and good nature that we forget the plot, the motivations, even the surprising amount of violence. The film is R-rated for violence and for something that Clooney's character builds that will either make you gasp or laugh uncontrollably. Either way, that scene alone with a smiling Clooney and a curious McDormand is worth the price of admission.