Getting Into Inside Llewyn Davis

Man did I love this movie.

Inside Llewyn Davis is as close as the Coen's have come to reconnecting with that amazing energy of Barton Fink (1991 Palm d'Or winner). But comparatively they couldn't be more different films at heart.

Where Barton is a total dumbass recycling one concept over and over and never really taking his work seriously, Llewyn is a mashup of the opposite... with surprisingly similar results. That's a big piece of what makes this film kind of heartbreaking. The struggle of being an artist with integrity can so easily be strained by the nature of business. Llewyn seeks to be understood but faces a sea of careerists, businessmen, and half-empty have-nots... never really finding a way out of the perpetual cycle that has become his existence.

Effectively, the Coen brothers have put together one of their finest films of the last ten years.

They had the presence of mind to bring back John Goodman in a bizarre but crucial role. And of course he delivered. John Goodman is one of those actors who just never seems to get enough credit... no matter how much praise he does get. I mean, how does this guy not have an Oscar??

Oscar Isaac was brilliantly cast as the titular character. He drives this one home and sticks the landing bring with him a truth and emotional depth that couldn't have existed had he not already been so musically talented in his own right.

I love Carey Mulligan, and while we didn't get a lot of her here, I think we got enough. Her part was interesting in that dynamic that perhaps she is existing as something she is not. It layers the character with a dimension of inconsistency... though she is frequently attempting to stay on that one plain of constant annoyance. When she eventually stops yelling she really shines through. And I appreciated the casting of Justin Timberlake in a very meta role. I do wonder if he understands the movie's message, but the fact is he really doesn't need to. In many ways, it's probably better that he doesn't.

I could talk giddy about the Coen brothers for hours, possibly days, based on their body of work up to this point. So it only pleases me more to be able to say "they've done it again." Keep doing what you do guys.

NYC Winterbang

Here's a great video I had the pleasure of being a part of recently. Courtesy of my friends, LondenFLESH:

The Incredible Failure Of Oldboy

Oldboy came out just in time for Thanksgiving. About two weeks later, it's already gone from most theaters. It was a relatively high profile picture with a famous director and big time cast... based on a much beloved foreign film. So what happened?

In a previous post I rallied for Spike Lee's Oldboy, and I stand by everything I said. The film had excellent acting performances. The editing was off. But as a whole, Spike Lee genuinely captured the essence of the original. It leads me to wonder if we psychologically view foreign language films in a different light. Perhaps a concept as bizarre as Oldboy's makes sense to us coming from a completely outside perspective (in this case Korea).

But once it is translated into an American existence we just separate too completely from the material. Perhaps that mentality comes into play of, "That could never happen in my back yard."

This is of course a broad assumption, but I can't really put my finger on what went wrong with this one. I suppose there's always a chance the target audience (ie. people who loved the original) was not interested in a remake at all. Then again, I don't recall pulling any emotional bravado from this remake... I suppose I assumed it had more to do with my foreknowledge of the content of the original, but perhaps Spike Lee's Oldboy just doesn't connect with any audience... even someone experiencing the material for the first time.

Philomena Makes Me Happy For Steve Coogan's Career

In a word, Philomena was... Great!

At heart, this story really gets to me. A young pregnant girl, taken in by a convent, is forced to give her child away and serve the nuns for four years. Fifty years later, she's still searching for her child. But the sisters at the convent continuously block her efforts.

Spoilers
It's a maddening true story, but as the events unfold I feel it carries a weight with it... the idea that we should love our neighbors and not live from a place of anger.

Philomena (Dench) sees the truth in the nuns even if she doesn't know it and in some magnificent way shows Sixsmith (Coogan) that he doesn't have to be like them.
End Spoilers

As the end credits rolled, I got a chance to see just how involved Steve Coogan was in the creation of this interesting, emotional, and awkwardly funny film. He was Producer, Actor, and Writer. It's clear the guy really cares about this story. What impressed me more, he wrote himself a part that legitimately played to his strengths. So often, over the last ten years, I've found myself wondering why Mr. Coogan's roles were so minimized. The guy's got talent, so cast him where his talent lies. He's proven he can carry a film, as he did with Tristram Shandy, The Trip, and this one: Philomena. So let's let him.

Of course, BBC seems more prone than other studios to allow artists to take charge of their art and really make the content they want to make. And I can't compliment them enough for that. If only more studios would follow their model. But sadly that tends to seem a lost cause.

The Best Man Holiday Is A Sequel??

I didn't have many expectations when I went to see The Best Man Holiday.

The last thing I would have guessed is that it was a sequel. The original The Best Man came out in 1999. I kinda wish I knew that before watching this one. However, it really didn't affect my experience. I think Malcolm D. Lee realized he'd have to give us all of the important information again anyway... both a strength and a weakness of this film. At points it feels as though these relationships really do make sense and are very well founded. But then there is the over explanation and repetition of the same plot point. It happens multiple times throughout.

I actually had an alright time watching this movie. I think the cast was very good. They all knew who they were and what they represented.

Taye Diggs is just a damn good actor. Terrence Howard managed not to piss me off for the first time in a while.

Nia Long was always cool. And I enjoyed the light freckles of complexity she allowed into her character. And Sanaa Lathan was such a pleasant surprise from start to finish.

What was odd to me, Harold Perrineau felt underutilized. In the past I've found him to show the widest range of everyone in this cast. But his entire storyline felt reserved... like they needed to hold him back. In that sense I felt his performance became a casualty to Malcolm D. Lee's vision. But then as a whole I suppose I wish, for all the talent involved, that the final product felt a little less cheeky... melodramatic... and cliche.

But how did this happen?

How did a melodramedy from 1999 with so-so reviews manage to garner a sequel fourteen years later? Not only that, how is it that there's going to be a third one? There may be something interesting to this question... Looking at the cast, almost all of them have done enough to become recognizable at this point. Perhaps the time felt right to revisit old friends (much like the plot of the movie) and see how far everyone had come. And I've gotta say, I do appreciate that.

Why Make The Book Thief?

I was hearing many positive things about The Book Thief before I finally got around to seeing it.

When all was said and done, I guess I just didn't understand. There have been so many Holocaust films... many of them of high high quality. The most recent one to my memory was Sarah's Key. Now it's been three years since that title, so I thought someone else would come out and brush off the history of it all and find some other interesting angle to tackle it from. Well, that's not exactly what happened here...

There is something to be said for the limited idea of watching this small town get sucked into a war they had no part in.

But by the time we reach the town in the first fifteen minutes, they're already clearly on that course. So the majority of the transformation has already occurred. It is interesting to see characters we may assume to be bad people properly humanized, and many of the characters here get a chance to be understood, but in the end the film felt unsure of itself and incomplete. Perhaps inconsistent is a better word.

Now I haven't read this book. The narrative format of death telling what it is he saw during this time could be interesting in prose, though a little contrived from the outset.  But in a film, I simply could not justify the decision to stick with it. Honestly those narrations brought back obnoxious memories of Perfume: The Story of A Murderer (one of the worst movies I've EVER seen).

Apologies. There were many positives.

Sophie Nélisse, the film's star, did a fantastic job. I was consistently compelled by her performance and can honestly say I want to see more from her.

Geoffrey Rush was, of course, quite good. And the majority of the supporting cast filled their roles with a consistent level of awe. I knew every individual because there was a level of true emotion and sympathy sheening from each of their distinctive eyes.

Honestly, I can see The Book Thief being up for many awards next year in Acting, Art Direction, Costume Design, Cinematography... practically any part of the film that doesn't have to do with Screenwriting. Sorry, Markus Zusak and Michael Petroni, but a great many elements fell flat with this one.

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."