La La Land (5/5 Stars)

Watching “La La Land,” one wonders why there aren’t more movies like it. After all, it is a lot of fun. The movie starts in a typical traffic jam on a Los Angeles overpass. That is until one person starts singing a cute upbeat tune entitled “It’s Just Another Day of Sun.” She is joined one by one by her fellow commuters and then all at once by every other person stuck on the overpass. They are of all creeds and colors and are lightly dressed and brightly colored. They start dancing, doing tricks with bikes and skateboards, and at one point the back of a van opens to reveal a band already playing this upbeat song. Suddenly the song ends, everyone gets back into their cars, and the traffic jam continues. The camera pans up to show the Los Angeles skyline and the movie’s best joke appears as a title. Simply, it states, “Winter.”

“La La Land” is written and directed by a young man named Damien Chazelle. He’s made three movies so far. His first “Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench,” was notable in how it contained distinct musical numbers, set pieces almost never seen in a no-budget movie (almost never because Damien Chazelle did it). “Whiplash,” Chazelle’s first brush with a budget (albeit still a very small one), was a virtuoso in editing which spoke volumes about the director’s preternatural talent and industry for displaying rhythm on the screen. “La La Land” is the full flourishing of Chazelle’s power. He reunites with Justin Hurwitz, the musical director of his previous features, and has created the best movie musical since 2002’s “Chicago.”

Unbound by a restrictive budget and reveling in the presence of movie stars like main leads Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, “La La Land” is a brilliantly romantic and exceptionally kinetic movie musical. The music riffs several themes over and over in various ways and they are good enough that the repetition is welcome. The cinematography wastes no frame in its attempt to make the movie wall to wall artistry. Cinema lovers who have watched Gene Kelly’s “Singin’ in the Rain” and “An American in Paris” will notice where the movie gets its inspiration. Gosling and Stone are not exceptional dancers (though they do a flawless Viennese Waltz at one point) but they don’t really need to be for you to have fun alongside them.

The movie might just win Best Picture and the reason it is the front-runner is also the only minor quip I have with it. The story, like previous Oscar winners like “The Artist,” “Argo,” and “Birdman,” is about people in the movie business. Emma Stone plays a wannabe actress striking out at various auditions and Ryan Gosling is a struggling jazz pianist. As someone who watches lots of movies, I believe I have seen enough movies about these particular types of people. “La La Land” is an exceptional movie musical, I just wish there were exceptional movie musicals that weren’t about people convinced the epitome of life is becoming famous.

Having said that, you may notice that these two characters aren’t necessarily equal in these cliche ambitions. Gosling is already good enough to get a good job in this movie, he just doesn’t want to settle for a regular gig. His ultimate goal is to open a jazz club where patrons can receive a very specific experience he feels is valuable. Whereas Emma Stone would be happy with any type of work and her ultimate goal is apparently to be recognized while buying coffee and insisting to pay for it when the manager tries to give it to her for free. One goal is actually worth having and this may reflect Chazelle’s far greater interest and experience in jazz than in whatever vague abstraction of success the Emma Stone character is going after.  

Whiplash (4/5 Stars)

Good Job

I could not be more impressed by a second feature and a first real budget (still low budget but still a budget) movie. The writer is Damien Chazelle. He is my age (OMFG) and his movie is absolutely killer. It is the sort of thing that registers a new cinematic presence in the neighborhood of greatness in your mind. I am excited for future movies from this kid. Let me explain: It is not too unusual for a very young person to give a great performance or write a very good screenplay or even to direct a good movie (take Ryan Coogler’s “Fruitvale Station” from last year). It’s unusual but not unheard of unusual. But the standout great thing about “Whiplash” is not any of these things. It is the editing. And Editing like Cinematography is a technical old-man-who-knows-how-to-work-machines job. Those other jobs can lean on the crutch of great inspiration or raw talent. Editing is a craft. Editing requires discipline and experience. And the editing that one experiences in “Whiplash” is so intricate, precise, and correct that to see a 28-year-old lead a team that does it is extraordinary. We need to give this Damien Chazelle some serious money and let him do whatever the fuck he wants next time around. The kid’s got rhythm.

“Whiplash” is a low budget movie. It has a protagonist (Jazz Drummer protégé played by Miles Teller) an antagonist (his sadistic/inspiring teacher played by J.K. Simmons) and two supporting characters: his easy going father and a girlfriend. The movie takes place in a series of rooms and concert halls and some country roads. The plot concerns the protagonist’s search for greatness in jazz drumming, his attempts to impress a teacher who is ideologically opposed to ever being impressed, and his ultimate confrontation and jazz drum battle with him. Now there is that on paper but on the screen you are watching what feels like an action blockbuster. This is pulled off by a focused screenplay, two great performances by Teller and Simmons and as I mentioned before extraordinary editing.

Jazz Drumming? Who gives a shit right? I knew nothing about it before seeing this movie (except of course for the Buddy Rich tapes). Well the presentation of a thing makes a world of difference. I am reminded of watching Bob Fosse’s “All That Jazz” and being turned off by the philandering reckless play director until the movie proved through choreography that he was a genius. There’s nothing like great art to diminish the distasteful eccentricities of the artist. So it is in “Whiplash.”Miles Teller really wants to be one of the greatest jazz drummers ever like Buddy Rich or Charlie Parker. His teacher mercilessly abuses him (not unlike the drill instructor in “Full Metal Jacket.”) There is yelling, slapping, throwing chairs, and sadistic mind fucking going all around. Miles practices until his hands start bleeding. He blows off his father. He breaks up with his girlfriend in order to focus more on his music. Why would Miles Teller go through this? Well fuck it’s the music. It’s great. And it fills the scenes with gorgeous suspense and hideous beauty. And the camera direction and editing seamlessly intertwine the pieces into the overall experience. The movie makes it plausible that greatness in this medium is worth experiencing terrible shit.

By making it plausible the movie opens a real discussion of whether greatness is worth destroying yourself in general. Miles has two father figures. His dad, easy going and unconditional in his love, is not particularly great at anything and requires nothing from his son. Then there is his teacher who demands and demands and demands and demands and who articulates that the most harmful words in the human language are “Good Job.” Well, is J.K. Simmons a good teacher? I have an opinion on that. I do not necessarily believe that yelling, slapping, or throwing chairs is bad leadership. I do have a problem with the manipulation and the lying. At one point in the movie the teacher confronts a student who is on-pitch with the accusation that they are off-pitch. The teacher knows that the student is on pitch. He also must know that in his strict disciplitarian camp of a classroom that the student cannot talk back or correct the teacher. And yet his excuse for his behavior when the student is dismissed is “well, he wasn’t off pitch but should have known that he wasn’t and that is worse.” So what is the point of his behavior? It is a perfect Catch-22 for the student. They will either get excoriated for differing from the teacher or get excoriated for being off pitch. There is no point is the answer. It is stupid and the teacher is a coward to only yell louder when he is called out on it. So “Full Metal Jacket” guy: all good in my book. I like him. The teacher in this movie: not so much. One kind of yelling toughens up a pupil, the other fucks with their mind. And if the teacher is not there to mold the mind, if he insists like in this movie that the perfect pupil will ultimately disregard his teaching than what is the point of the teacher at all.

Or to put it another way: What is the point of teachers when it comes to Greatness. If it can’t be taught then perhaps the best teacher is but an intelligent obstacle.

Or did I just persuade myself the other way….

Up in the Air (5/5 Stars) December 25, 2009

To say that ‘Up in the Air’ is a movie “or our times” is selling it short.

Ivan Reitman directs his third film and George Clooney stars as a habitual loner in “Up in the Air.” More than anything, this movie is about the breakup of human relationships. I mention the word ‘human’ because that is how deep this movie goes. It speaks not to a time period, ethnicity, or type of personality. It is about our species.

George Clooney (perhaps the perfect choice as in “real life” he has famously never married) plays a man devoid of most human relationships. His job is to fire other humans from their jobs because their employers are too chicken-shit. This takes him around the country for most of the year. He is on track to become the 7th person ever to achieve 10,000,000 frequent flier miles. On the side, he gives lectures about how ones connections in life are weights upon the soul like a backpack one has to carry around. Up until where this movie starts, I would assume he talked to very little people. The few he would speak to (i.e. the ones he fires) he never gets to see again.

But now! There is some restructuring in the very corporation he works for. His boss (played by Jason Bateman) is impressed by a girl fresh out of college (played by Anna Kendrick) who wants to take the technology of today and revolutionize the business. Instead of firing them face to face like old man Clooney, she wants to do it over the Internet. It will save the company 85% of its travel costs. 

Clooney is forced to take her on the road and show her the ropes. They both see and learn a lot. So do we. I personally love movies that teach me things. Here, I learn all about the perks of being a frequent flier. Clooney has all the high-flying elite cards those people that get around way too often. We get to see inside all the admiral clubs, we get to cut in front of all the lines, we hear all the Airworld terminology, we get to travel first class. 

And while we are at it, we see the faces of people who have just lost their jobs. Ivan Reitman apparently hired real people who lost their jobs in this Great Recession. They get to speak their minds about how they feel. Clooney and Kendrick attempt to give their preconceived condolences. Most of the time it doesn’t work. 

If the movie were only about seeing people getting fired, it would be “about our times.” But it isn’t about just that. It also contains some great stuff about the break up of human relations. Some really thought out scenarios, some profound conversations, and some incredible situations. There’s a girl who follows a boy to Nebraska after college. There’s a groom who gets cold feet before his marriage. And Clooney’s character for maybe a very rare time in his life falls for a woman (Vera Farmiga from The Departed). It ends just the way it should. It is very much the title of the movie.

George Clooney plays a role that perhaps only he can play. He should get a Nomination for his work. Also Anna Kendrick will probably get a nomination for her supporting work. It should be said though that the power of her performance comes mainly from the script. Great parts for women are unfortunately scarce and any very well written part is usually a lock for a nomination. This is one of those. Vera also strikes the perfect notes as well. This is one of those movies where you simply can’t think of anything that could have been done better. 

Are humans relational or not? Do people, partners, and family weigh us down? Or are we more at home flying up in the air? What does it mean to live life to the fullest? Does it involve keeping in motion or settling down? Questions, questions, questions. I will say at least this much, this movie is not realistic in at least one aspect: The truly alienated and completely free people (like Mr. Clooney in this movie is supposed to represent) never get to espouse their views upon other people. They do not give lectures to audiences about the greatness of being alone; instead they talk to themselves and murmur in their sleep. They speak to imaginary people in screenplays. In other words, nobody ever hears about the wonders of being alone. Nobody is there to listen. To wish to be alone is to wish to be forgotten. The ironic thing about this movie is that Clooney has so many people to talk to about being alone. But hey, you wouldn’t have a movie if that weren’t the case. 

I hope not to rant too much about the way our society has crumbled in the last half century. I can only point to statistics (See the book Bowling Alone). In that book it showed that the new baby boomers and subsequent generations were more interested in money and careers as opposed to families and community. This story is perhaps the end result of such priorities. If there is a silver lining to the Great Recession it is that maybe people will realize that corporations are not as worthwhile and welcoming as families and communities. Corporations (and the free market) will throw you out and fire your ass the second it becomes less profitable. Families stick with you through thick and thin. In hard times at least family ties are more valuable than corporate ties. 

This movie should also be nominated for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Director. I have written reviews for all of Ivan Reitman’s movies. He is the only director I can say that about. He has progressed substantially (see my reviews of Thank You for Smoking and Juno) as I hope I have. I look forward to his next one. 

I Love You, Man April 1, 2009 (4/5 Stars)

I love Paul Rudd and I’m beginning to really like Jason Segal too. Those two would be cool to be friends with, I’m sure. I Love You, Man is about a newly-engaged man who finds himself getting ready for a wedding which he doesn’t have a best man for. Thing is, Peter (Paul Rudd) has always been a girlfriend guy; he makes friends with girls easily and has never had any real guy friends. When eavesdropping on ladies-night, he hears his fiancé’s (Rashida Jones) friends talk about how weird that is. Completely embarrassed Peter goes on a mission to make man friends. Cut to a montage of awkward man dates (all of which are funny) till he meets Sidney Fife (Jason Segal) at an open house he is throwing to sell Luc Ferrigno’s (playing himself) mansion. Sidney is a master at reading people. He readily points out to Peter a guy who is trying to hold back a fart. We all look on enraptured by Sidney’s keen observance of the human scene.
This movie is the vein of ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall,’ Jason Segal’s last movie, in that most of the characters are nice people who spend their time on screen being wonderful to each other. If for some reason you don’t find the movie funny (which probably won’t happen) there is no reason to hate it. All the characters are likable (except Jon Favreau’s grumpy guy, but he still is funny, so is still welcome). There is the likable Andy Samburg (SNL) who plays Peter’s gay brother, and thus is perfect for advising him how to take out a guy. There is the likable J.K. Simmons (Spiderman, Juno) who plays Peter’s dad, who talks mostly about how his gay son is his best friend. Rashida Jones plays Peter’s fiancé and she is every bit as sweet as he is. Sidney Fife, although uncouth, is undoubtedly a great friend. Rounding out the cast in small supporting roles is Jane Curtain, the gay dude from Reno 911, and stock Apatow bit player Joe Lo Trugilio (who might just break the record for creating distinct characters with only minutes of screen time in each movie he is in.) The movie ends with a wedding where everyone tells each other that they love each other. It is completely believable. I love these guys too. 
The curious thing about all these bromantic comedies is that they seem to feel the need to be Rated R. It’s probably in order to save face in lieu of their obvious emotional core, that and swearing is funny. But despite the R, there is really nothing here that I would feel weird showing a preteen. There’s absolutely no violence or sex. I’m not sure I care whether people say the F-word any more. 
This movie was written and directed by John Hamburg (previously unknown to me). It must have cost little to nothing. I wonder if that’s Luc Ferrigno’s house in the picture. It does have a huge sculpture of him in it. Either they borrowed it or it’s the most expensive thing in the picture. Some movies you can tell that the author is speaking through the characters (Like say in Woody Allen, Coen Brothers, Mamet, and Shakespeare movies.) Not so in this movie. I have trouble even imagining the words spoken in this movie on a script page. Everything thing just seems so natural and realistic. It sounds even more naturalistic than a Christopher Guest movie (Mighty Wind, Best in Show) and they don’t even have scripts. It really seems like Paul Rudd is just making up the words as he goes. I have trouble believing that someone actually wrote down the words “jobin” or “totos magatos.” If someone actually did, then Paul Rudd is truly a great actor because that guy just makes it seem so easy. The situations in the movie are also dangerously close to real life. Whether its Peter trying to introduce his favorite band, Rush, to his fiancé on crappy laptop speakers, or when he tries to crack mannish jokes that turn out incredibly awkward, or the travails of playing sports with women, or when he asks for his Lost Season 2 DVD’s back because he wants to find out what happens in the hatch. Like I said, I had trouble hearing any voice from the writer because everything seemed so real. I’ve seen a lot of movies. I almost never say that. 
If anything is stopping this movie from being great it is its lack of any real antagonist. Like I said, everyone is basically really nice. It wasn’t like ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’ where at least the ex-girlfriend had been a jerk. Here the worst thing done is a toast by Sidney Fife, which concerns a topic I wouldn’t for a million years give away because it happens to be the funniest moment in the movie.

Burn After Reading 09/15/08

The problem with this comedy is that it doesn't know where its priorities are. Out of the great ensemble within, there is only one purely comic character. His name is Chad and he's a absentminded gym employee played by Brad Pitt. Unfortunately he is the last character introduced and the first one to leave, prematurely at that. As far as I'm concerned, they should have made that guy the main character. He's profoundly more interesting to watch than anybody else. 
There's a bare bones feel to the entire movie. The plot may be original, and yes I haven't seen anything like it, I'll also concede that it has its moments, but it still isn't anything really special. Clocking in at a long hour and a half and ending arbitrarily (some may say lazily) it lacks any real bite or a fever pitch that usually accompanies your average Coen brothers movie. What this movie is, if anything is a weird footnote in the career's of its very accomplished cast. The Coen's have just won the Oscar for best picture, Swinton has just won an Oscar, Clooney has just been nominated, Brad Pitt is a huge star, and Malkovich and McDormand have always been well respected. Put that together with a supporting cast including the likes of J.K. Simmons and Richard Jenkins plus the great cinematographer Roger Deakins and it's a wonder how this movie could be so forgettable.
There are basically two plots that interweave. One features the misplaced memoirs of Osbourne Cox, an ex-CIA man, that falls into the hands of gym employees (McDormand and Pitt) who try to blackmail him. The other plot line has to do with several extra-marital affairs involving Swinton, Clooney, and McDormand. The first plot is consistently funny. The second is completely vacant of laughter and hangs around taking up space, draining away the life of the movie, and wasting time in general. Swinton may be a good dramatic actress but she is completely lost here, not that the script gives her much help. The largest laugh along this story line comes when Clooney is impressed by the white pine floor of McDormand's apartment. It's a random throwaway line that is funny simply because it has no connection with the scene. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. It often doesn't in this movie. There's a complete lack of jokes in some scenes. The cutesy dialogue may garner a giggle, Clooney may mug and gain a snigger but there simply isn't enough material here. And I don't care who's telling a penis joke, the Coen brothers or Rob Schneider, there needs to be some sort of context to it before it becomes funny. Come on Coen brothers, you're better than that. 

Juno 12/19/07

The trilogy is complete. The year 2007 gave us three great comedies, all within the same strain of humor, but distinctively different and original. We were first treated with "Knocked Up," then "SuperBad," and now we have the completion with "Juno." They complement each other greatly and I bet it would be really fun if they were shown back to back to back at a Judd Apatow/Diablo Cody party or something. 
Out of the three this one is the sweetest. It has the least raunch and bad taste. Where the Apatow films are laden with obscenities, in this one they are mostly absent. Instead we are treated to an insane amount of slang and jargon, half of which I've never heard before. It's not really a regional thing, its more like the outcome of a really smart, courageous, and bored teenager that comes in contact with a thesaurus. Juno is a very unique girl. She breaks the news of her pregnancy to her sort of boyfriend in a living room set she has moved to his front lawn. There's a tiger rug and she's pretending to smoke a pipe. This is one cool girl, but its not like a "I'm so cooler than you," its more of a "I really can't help myself, I have to do and say weird and unique things."
The movie is quite the achievement in a couple of ways. First, the writing, by Diablo Cody is nothing I've ever seen before. She doesn't sidestep any sticky situations. Take for example, a really nice scene outside the abortion clinic where Juno has a conversation with one of her classmates who's protesting outside. Juno puts on a brave face and tells jokes but the cracks show in the frame. When her friend tells her about her babies fingernails, it hits her even though she tries to talk herself out of it. Ellen Page has her hands full trying to make a rounded charachter out of Juno's sometimes overburdening verbality. The script demands a great performance and she delivers. 
The movie also shows us divorced parents, stepmoms, and inlaws. These are situations that are in the real world all the time but are usually ingnored in movies. Diablo Cody shows a keen understanding of the fractured home landscape. She even concedes that a stepmom can be a cool person. Allison Janney and J.K. Simmons as the parents are very strong supporting charachters. Michael Cera as the boyfriend is inspired casting too. I have yet to see that guy in a sub par project. 
I have two more tidbits of praise and that is to the director, Jason Reitman, who I believe has overcome many of the mistakes he made in his directorial debut. (See my review of Thank You for Smoking). And I would also be curious as to who wrote all those songs for the movie. The soundtrack to this movie features plenty of quiet sweet songs. At least a couple I am going to buy from Itunes, especially the song the movie ends on.

Thank you for Smoking 10/09/06

Have you ever heard people describe a movie as "good for a bad movie." Like it was a horrible idea but its been done so well its pulled off as mediocre. This movie is the exact opposite. "Its bad for a good movie." The idea was good, it had good actors, the script was okay, the execution of the thing just really really sucked.
There are some scenes in this movie, the Mod Squad dining room, that are filled with special effects. There's great lighting, there's good blocking, the scene looks like its in a movie. Then there's other parts, like the fairground scene, where it looks like it was shot with a home video camera. It's like the director spent all his money on a few scenes, ran out of it halfway through, and then halfassed the rest of the movie.
And what was with the kidnapping subplot that lasted only about five minutes. This movie did not need that. It's completely gratuitous and to my senses it was only introduced because the first time director Jason Reitman, did not trust his own material. I may be an American but my attention span is over five minutes long. I came to the movie theater and I paid $7.50. I was interested in the material, there should have been more respect for my intelligence. This movie was just way too cool, always trying to prove to me that it was worth watching. I assumed it was worth watching before I got in the theater, it didn't need to keep on persuading me. All it needed to do was focus on telling the story.
One last thiing. It's a shame what this script did to a few of the actors. Katie Holmes' reporter was very underwritten and she deserves more screen time before she jumps into bed with the main charachter. And the kid, I don't know who played the kid, but he is given some of the most unrealistic lines in the entire movie. and of course he's just a kid so he can't pull it off. What's more is there's alot of jokes here that just fell flat. The shame is they could have been funny if the timing were a little tweaked here and there. The guy from the OC has a string of blatantly smashed together lines that sound like jokes but never really worked. A note to directors of comedies: If a joke isn't funny you've got to rework it, rewrite it, or at the very least, cut it. There's nothing worse in a comedy than a joke that doesn't produce laughter. A bad joke ruins the mood and it's better not to hear it at all.