Can't Place My Finger On Inherent Vice

Paul Thomas Anderson makes weird movies. That's kind of his thing. But Inherent Vice takes that statement to a whole new level.

This is the first film adapted from the author Thomas Pynchon's work. And it's got a plot far too convoluted to explain, but I'll try anyway. In 1970s Los Angeles, Doc (Joaquin Phoenix) is a private detective smoking his days away while he's not trying to solve a case. But one day his ex-girlfriend Shasta (Katherine Waterston) shows up at his place in tears telling him about a conspiracy she's been drawn into to stick her current boyfriend (who's actually married) in a looney bin. The story just gets weirder and weirder from there. But always with a sense of fun and intrigue.

I guess when I say I can't place my finger on Inherent Vice, what I mean is I like it but I don't really understand why I like it. This movie feels like an anomaly. It's like P.T. Anderson's attempt at making his own The Big Lebowski. But he being who he is found a property that perfectly encapsulated exactly what his version of that would be. It's baffling. It's mesmerizing. It almost shouldn't work, but then something comes along and gets you back on the same page. There are too many names by half and too many organizations trying to be involved, but that doesn't seem to matter. Somehow the relationship between Doc (Phoenix) and Bigfoot (Josh Brolin) holds power over the audience. Neither character makes sense by themselves, but at some point they both begin to make perfect sense with each other.

Joaquin Phoenix does a good enough job here. Though at stretches he is impossible to understand and the looseness of some of the scenes, particularly early on, seems to work against his current acting style making him feel like he's sitting in some low-level acting class trying to remember how to breath and talk at the same time. But like I said, he mostly gets it done. Josh Brolin is great! He's entertaining to watch, knows when to chew the scenery and when to reel it in, and his character choices are precisely what is called for at any given time. To be honest, I'm surprised he's not getting any Supporting Actor buzz. Katherine Waterston is a joy to watch here as well. I didn't know her very well before this flick, but I'll be looking for her in the future. It's also really cool to have Joanna Newsom in there as the narrator. She's got such a wonderful voice which she'll usually display in music, but P.T. had the insight to let her voice color his own film in a different way.

On the surface, Inherent Vice seems like it shouldn't work. It's just too overwhelming and weird. But a great director with a quality cast... and a little bit of elbow grease... gets it done here. This is a flick worth seeing in theaters.

Returning To Sin City With A Dame To Kill For

Not gonna lie, I was waaay excited to return to the world of Sin City for another go around. The first movie was such a fun trip. Robert Rodriguez was back, Frank Miller was back... what could possibly go wrong?

Well, it's really not all that simple. I did essentially get a similar kind of joy out of this sequel. The original was such an interesting movie... completely shot in Rodriguez's studio, all covered in green screens and the entirety of the film was just CGed over to create this scoping world. And everything seemed to flow together even though it was a series of stories all taken from very different books in the opus of Sin City history. They made that initial movie work so well because they could choose whatever piece they wanted and tie it all up in a pretty little bow to the point that a revisit probably wasn't necessary.

And that's exactly where Sin City: A Dame To Kill For's fate gets murky. Since the creators had initially made the first film out of order, they left a lot of stories untold in varying spots in the timeline. So what this sequel becomes... is more like a bunch of pretty cool deleted scenes... both sequel and prequel and in fact... stuff that was going on at the same time as the other things from the first flick. In that regard, it becomes very confusing trying to realign your perspective in the overall arc of the film.

Regardless, the filmmakers did manage to tell a number of entertaining stories. But the end result feels like it could eventually be combined with the original to make a massive, all encompassing mega-movie.

Mickey Rourke still kills it with his performance as the utterly horrific, but somehow totally lovable Marv... OLD SPOILER one of the myriad of returning characters that actually died in the original. END OLD SPOILER He reminded me of all the things I really enjoyed from the first film. And that's pretty powerful for one actor to bring us back like that. Jessica Alba, however takes a very different position, showing a much darker side to the once peaceful Nancy. Her scenes are likely the most important in reference to the first film, but somehow feel like they cheapen those things that made me so completely enjoy her before.

Josh Brolin does his best Clive Owen impression and gets away with it a few times, but ultimately Dwight's story loses some steam because of the prequel nature of this segment... that and he really doesn't get any help from Eva Green who apparently becomes a worse actress the more she drops trow. This is unfortunate because, after Casino Royal, I really did think she was going to prove to be a very solid actress. This has not seemed to pan out in her last several showings... 300: Rise of an Empire (ugh) and Dark Shadows included. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was a very entertaining new element to this sequel, but his part felt waaay too short in the grand scheme of things. The same can be said for Juno Temple's wonderful cameo.

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is a welcome supplement to the original feature. If you liked that movie at all this is certainly worth a visit and it definitely looks good on the big screen, though I really felt the 3D was useless and unfortunately distracted me from the things I did like about the flick. In any event, I say give it a shot, though it may not have the same quality arc of the original, it's still got its moments.

A Solid Remake For Oldboy

Oldboy had been skipping through Hollywood directors' hands for a little while before Spike Lee got to stake his claim to the property.

He threw in some of his old tricks,

but ultimately managed to create a worthy successor to the original... rather, if it had to be made I'm glad it was made this way with this cast and crew. Because they didn't hold back. Sure there are a few minor discrepancies. Perhaps the editing could have been more consistent and the ending was a little off...

Spoiler
I recall a certain someone taking a certain something to a certain part of their body that you would never take that something to in the original.
End Spoiler

But over all, it was there. The same movie repackaged in a language I can understand with a cast that I recognize in a part of the world that I may have visited at some point in my life. Like Vanilla Sky, Let The Right One In, and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo before it... I really don't have a problem with remakes like this so long as they stay true to the source material. Even though I still maintain a deep affection for each of those originals.

Josh Brolin was pretty much perfect. I gotta say, I grow more fond of his acting chops with each movie. He's managed to subtly activate a different kind of energy for every one of his roles over the last 10 years. That's worth a couple thumbs up and a trip to the bank. Same goes for Elizabeth Olsen. I've only caught two of her films thus far (the other being Martha Marcy May Marlene), but she has done an excellent job in both. She is by far the most talented Olsen sibling.

Samuel L. Jackson played his part well. It was so fun watching him go back to his acting roots with this role. It reminded me of Jackie Brown, True Romance, and Hard Eight all at once. Sharlto Copley was again an interesting choice. I think the audience instantly sees him and wants to side with him, but he's so obviously a sick individual this time around that it forces some weird emotions on all of us. Let me note that while we were introduced to him as a sort of hero in District 9, his last two big films have had him playing very bad people. Makes me wonder if he'll ever be the good guy again.

Spike Lee pulled it together this time around and brought us a pretty solid interpretation of a known and loved piece of art. So I've gotta say, "thanks Spike for not screwing it up."