Monday, February 25, 2008

Be Kind Rewind: Review

In a way that brings to mind such works as Cinema Paradiso, Michel Gondry’s latest offering is a joyous celebration of what film can do and ultimately what it can’t. Be Kind Rewind, the newest creation from the most inventive filmmaker working today, may not be his best work and in some respects, it may be his worst. However, this speaks not so much to the quality of Rewind as it does to the greatness of his previous works (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Science of Sleep and Dave Chappelle’s Block Party) and what Gondry has here is another seemingly effortless mixture of sentimentality and whimsy that is consistently entertaining and heartfelt. Buoyed by a charismatic cast and wonderful visuals, Be Kind Rewind hit the hearts of all those who ever took the family video camera and made a “movie”.

Jerry (Jack Black) and Mike (Mos Def) live in Passaic, NJ where Mike works at a small thrift/video store, owned by Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover), called Be Kind Rewind. Jerry is something of a destructive personality, who deeply believes that the power plant located next to his camper is somehow manipulating the minds of the good people of the neighborhood. After an ill advised attempt to sabotage the power plant in which he is exposed to a massive magnetic field, thus magnetizing Jerry (which includes one of the many memorable visual gags in the film), he arrives at the store the next day, only to demagnetize every VHS tape in the store.

Unfortunately for Mr. Fletcher, who is out of town at what he tells Mike is a Fats Waller convention, his store only carries VHS. To try and hide the fact that every tape is destroyed, Mike and Jerry set off on remaking every movie in the store, via good old fashioned do-it-yourself filmmaking. They explain the process as “Sweding”, that is the importing of tapes from Sweden, hence the slight differences that one may see when watching it. Luckily for them, the neighborhood takes a liking to their work and off we go.
If this seems far-fetched, it is but one must enter a Gondry film with a suspension of disbelief or else nothing will be gained. Gondry’s aim is not to create realistic depictions of life but rather, using outlandish setups, create in depth explorations of real human emotion. It is here that he succeeds wildly. With Eternal Sunshine and The Science of Sleep, he explored the nature of romantic love with a bittersweet melancholy that was equally heartfelt and inventive. With Dave Chappelle’s Block Party, he focused his lens on the meaning of community and he continues with that theme in Be Kind Rewind. Where he looked at the power of music in the former, in the latter, he looks at the power of film and in many respects, he displays an understanding of the power of cinema not seen since the late 80’s with Tornatore’s Cinema Paradiso.

As someone who frequently spent his free time in middle and high schools making movies on an old Sony camcorder, the sweding sequences were wonderful glimpses back to what it felt like to be making those short movies. What they lacked in subtlety and skill, they made up for in raw energy and a genuine love for the process. It isn’t much different in Mike and Jerry’s creations and when their versions of Boyz ‘N the Hood or 2001: A Space Odyssey are shown, I couldn’t help but reminisce of watching our own creations. They were our labors of love and whether my friends and I realized it at the time, the creation of a film was forcing us to collaborate to get something on that magnetic strip. For Mike and Jerry, they are the same emotions, until the process is complicated with news that the shop is going to close and be demolished to make way for luxury condominiums. Then, it doesn’t become just Mike and Jerry’s interest but the larger communities and it is here that the film truly takes off.

Mos Def, as Mike, is wonderful. He possesses an effortless charisma that is affable and charming. He serves as a perfect foil for Black’s manic, at times grating, performance, balancing out the film wonderfully. Equally as charming is Melonie Diaz, as Alma, the duo’s sidekick. Together, the three form the core of the film and without their work, much of Gondry’s intentions would have been lost somewhere in the journey from script to screen.


Gondry’s direction is a mixture of slapstick, melancholy and visual originality that all come together in a style that’s really all his own. Few directors in recent memory has been as consistently inventive and distinctive in their initial efforts but it seems like Gondry is truly one of a kind, an artist with an avant-guard eye but a mainstream heart. Even at its strangest moments,
The Science of Sleep, easily his least accessible work, is emotionally grounded in moments that most will be able to identify with. Be Kind Rewind doesn’t come close to the bizarre sequences in its predecessor but it doesn’t lose a bit of its heart. It may be sentimental, but when its executed so joyfully, who can complain? I supposed that Miss Falewicz (Mia Farrow), one of the neighborhood elder states(wo)men, puts it best: “Here’s to movies with heart!”. I couldn’t agree more.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

In Bruges: Review

In Bruges, the film which opened 2008’s Sundance Film Festival is a mixed bag, a deceivingly morally complex thriller that is gleefully offensive and awfully violent, particularly in its last 25 minutes or so when it all comes flying off the rails. Up to that point, Martin McDonagh’s feature debut is an enjoyable thriller with a sharp script and a number of great performances. It is because the first two thirds are as enjoyable as they are that one is left confused and disappointed by the final act.

In Bruges tells the story of two hit men, Ray and Ken (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson), who are told by their boss, Harry (Ralph Finnes) to hide out in the title city following a hit gone wrong. For Ray, as he quickly informs the viewer, the idea of hiding in Bruges is less than ideal. Ken, on the other hand, relishes the time off and the ability to explore the most well preserved medieval city in Europe. As the film progresses, Ray, continuing to ignore the advice of his boss, goes out for a couple nights out on the town, drawing the ire of both Ken and Harry.

Led by Colin Farrell, in his best performance in ages, and Brendan Gleeson, In Bruges is held up by the cast, who take McDonagh’s quick wit script and create a profane tapestry of Tarantino-esque dialogue. However, where Tarantino displays a tremendous knack for popular culture knowledge, McDonagh concentrates on his thematic constructions, a sure sign of his theatre background. Unlike Tarantino’s postmodern deconstructions of genre, McDonagh is more at home in traditional threads, relying on a fairly straightforward narrative.

The approach benefits In Bruges, which is surprising in its complexity. It is by no means a simple thriller, but rather one that poses a series of conflicted characters that will force the audience to consider its alliances. Farrell’s character, a first time hit man who accidentally kills an innocent bystander, is initially a dislikable killer but as In Bruges moves through its story, it becomes increasingly difficult to come to simple decisions about the characters. Much like Pulp Fiction’s iconic Vincent Vega and Jules Winfield, Ray and Ken are hit men with morals and feelings. While they are able to do their job, they aren’t always the happiest about having to do it. Writing it here seems ridiculous, but during the course of the film, McDonagh creates a difficult situation upon which to choose sides.

With all this comparison to Tarantino and his work, it is important to note one key distinction. While he may be an able, even downright talented writer and creator of characters, McDonagh doesn’t possess the same cinematic language and technique as Tarantino. Without his feverish referencing of other films, genres and even other mediums of pop culture, all wrapped in a neat cinematic bow, Tarantino’s films would feel much less fun and that is what we have here with In Bruges. McDonagh seems to be a capable director but when the action gets hot and heavy at the end of the film, In Bruges is at its worst, relying on a few shootouts and some out of place gore to carry it to the end.

Farrell, Gleeson and Finnes should all be applauded, as each put in memorable performances. Farrell, who seems to mix awful career decisions with brilliant ones, gives the film his all, taking McDonagh’s Ray and making him into a fully formed human being. Combine that with the reliable Gleeson and Finnes, who routinely turn in wonderful work and the cast is solely responsible from keeping this film out of the outright failure category. While the film’s finale is not enough to ruin the entire experience, it certainly puts a damper on the proceedings. In Bruges could have been something special, but instead, it joins the line of films since the mid 90’s who desperately want to match the brilliance of Pulp Fiction but come up short, time and time again.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Cloverfield: Review


By the time of it's release, Cloverfield had become something more than a movie. Through brilliant marketing campaigns, viral and otherwise, producer JJ Abrams has crafted a monster movie that quite frankly, can't be ignored. However, with all the hype comes higher expectations yet, as Abrams has continued to do time and time again in recent years, he and his team have crafted a monster thriller that, while not entirely successful, is one of the first major reasons in 2008 to get out to your nearest multiplex. With a ferocious visceral intensity that feels pleasantly out of place for a wide January release, Cloverfield is a triumph of genre moviemaking that should please audiences looking for relief from the seriousness of Oscar season.

Directed by Matt Reeves, Cloverfield is not unlike its monster predecessors in its narrative but in its means of storytelling, it refreshing in its 21st century technique. Shot using handheld digital cameras designed to give the feel of a digital camcorder, Cloverfield tells that story of a group of mid-twenties who have their going away party for a friend interrupted by the arrival of a giant beast. At the group's core is Rob (Michael Stahl-David, who is supposed to leave for a new job in Japan the next day, yet thanks to the marauding fiend currently wrecking New York City, it appears as if those plans may be waylaid. In their place is a new mission, to rescue his semi-girlfriend Beth (Odette Yustman), who leaves the downtown party early and is caught in a building about 40 blocks away. Coming along with Rob are his brother Jason and his fiancée Lily (Mike Vogel and Jessica Lucas), his best friend Hud (T.J. Miller) and finally, a fellow partygoer Marlena (Lizzy Caplan, of Mean Girls fame).

If the premise sounds simple, it is. No one is going to accuse Cloverfield of being the most intellectual movie currently gracing movie screens across the country but what it lacks in narrative smarts, it more than makes up for in its thrilling set pieces. As mentioned earlier, these moments are glimpsed through the handheld camera work of Hud (really shot by cinematographer Michael Bonvillain), which gives the events a you-are-there intensity. However, this should come with a warning to those with a weak stomach or easily susceptible to motion sickness: Cloverfield makes The Blair Witch Project look positively stationary. Often times, there are moments where the camera is nothing but blurry motion as the characters sprint ahead, trying to stay out of danger. It will undoubtedly annoy some viewers but for those accustomed to watching videos on YouTube, the camerawork of Cloverfield will become practically invisible as the story heats up.

Throughout, the film takes on an impromptu, on the spot style that feels largely improvised and spontaneous. The strength of this film was never going to be and never will be its script or acting. In fact, the script is a combination of drab, predictable dialogue saved by a brilliant premise. The amazing part comes in that the audience didn't seem to mind the general lack of decent dialogue. The film, quite frankly, doesn't seem to mind either. It's focus is on putting as many thrills as possible on the screen in its short 85 minute runtime. This will, once again, cause some to complain but given the technical restraints of a camcorder tape, it is a brilliant move to keep the film at its length. As it is, it grabs the viewer after a meandering initial 10 minutes and doesn't let go for the 75 minutes. Its economical storytelling keeps the audience moving forward from scene to scene, from thrill to thrill. Even if the nihilistic ending doesn't fully satisfy everyone (but honestly, when has a JJ Abrams associated project had an ending that does?), its scene by scene intensity makes up for it.

While it isn't the monster masterpiece it may have been made out to be, Cloverfield is an undeniable thrill ride from beginning to end. It may have felt more at home in an air conditioned July theatre but for a January release, it is a welcome change from the Rambo's and Untraceable's of the world. It will most likely annoy older viewers who will find its camerawork incomprehensible but quite frankly, that’s not the film's target audience. It knows what it wants to be and for that, it is all the more successful. Some critics have pointed out the obvious visual ties to 9/11 that are undeniable but they never hold the film down. This is a pure and simple, visceral genre film at its core and it works as that. But for those looking for something more, they best look at the abundance of thoughtful, intelligent films currently in art houses around the country because it isn't here. What is, however, is well worth the price of admission: a nail biting, fearless Godzilla for the 21st century.