"Nine" lofty attempts come up short (3.75/5)

I would be lying if I said I was a “fan” of Federico Fellini. I say this not because I don’t like him, but because I have only seen a few of his films (“8 ½” and “La Dolce Vita”) and it would be unruly of me to comment on his entire film canon. Yet, what I loved about “La Dolce Vita” and “8 ½” was Fellini’s ability to create a surreal and dreamlike experience. Never did it feel like they were constrained by the characters or even the plot; everything just seemed to flow on a breeze destined to the edge of imagination and the subconscious. This aspect is what I found completely enchanting about “8 ½” as its plot not only weaved moments of grandeur and hilarity, but moments of human discovery and sentimentality. Unfortunately, such a sentiment was rarely found in Rob Marshall’s “Nine” which is based off a Broadway musical incarnation of Fellini’s “8 ½”.

This is mostly disappointing because if there was ever the type of film that would lend itself to Fellini’s dreamscape, it would be the musical genre which is a genre that is built on grand moments that one would only hope to experience while asleep. Now, the synopsis of “Nine” is nearly the same as found in “8 ½”. Director Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is struggling with writing his next film, which oddly enough begins production in a matter of days. Yet, as he battles writers block, Guido is having a little trouble with the ladies. More specifically he’s having a hard time balancing time between his mistress (Penelope Cruz), his wife (Marion Cotillard), and convincing his muse (Nicole Kidman) to star in his new film. With pressure mounting, Guido slips into what seems to be daydreams as he recollects his triumphs with the women of his life and films. It’s at this moment that Fellini’s “8 ½” takes flight as it moves from point to point at a manic pace; a point where reality can’t be discerned from daydream; a point where reality blurs.

Yet, in the case of “Nine”, director Marshall doesn’t accentuate the flights of fancy anymore than he deflates them. Certainly the musical numbers add a certain depth and introspection to Guido’s mind, but more often than not Marshall confuses a surreal moment with a flashy one; depth with breadth. Yes, the musical numbers, especially Fergie’s “Be Italian”, are interesting productions, but when confined mostly to Guido’s singular film set and with minimal setup, they’re only skimming the top of Guido’s subconscious. Now, this is not to say I came into the theater expecting the same level of depth found in “8 ½”, but with so many ideas to mine from Fellini’s classic, I couldn’t help but feel the film missed an opportunity to deliver an existential musical that would do its source material proud. This is only furthered by the fact that a few of the women characters are delegated to merely a few scenes, let alone any actual development, causing their connection with Guido to feel trivial.

And this is really quite a shame considering the terrific cast “Nine” boasts. The talent of Hudson, Kidman, and Dench are in many ways wasted. Thankfully the likes of Day-Lewis, Cruz, and Cotillard bring enough passion and zeal to make the film boil when Marshall’s attempts simmer. More specifically all three are able to bring a balance point between their musical and non-musical scenes, as they’re able to draw out their characters in nearly every aspect. Cruz is beautifully vulnerable as Guido’s mistress, while Cotillard delivers the best performance in the film as Guido’s wife, a woman grown weary of her husband’s backsliding. And to no one’s surprise, Daniel Day-Lewis delivers another great performance as he is able to capture the charisma and command a person like Guido possesses.

Certainly, Day-Lewis doesn’t have the best voice (not that I’d be the best judge of that) but what he lacks in range or overall singing talent he makes up for with an undeniable bravura. It should also be no surprise that when Cruz, Day-Lewis and Cotillard take charge, the movie is far more effective and worthy of our attention. It’s with these three actors that we see the potential the film had to offer; the potential found in Fellini’s “8 ½”. Yet, through all of its shortcomings, “Nine” is still an entertaining and somewhat provocative take on love and the construction of an artist. Who knows, maybe with a different mixture of songs, less flash and beefier roles, “Nine” could’ve held up as its own vision, as well as be comparable to Fellini’s. But the film can only dream that it reached such a peak.

Just for kicks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA9DeCHfzgw

"Sherlock Holmes" sails on its leading duo, but dips on its premise (3.5/5)

From the very beginning, "Sherlock Holmes" was never going to adequately replicate Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's smart, structured mysteries. Whether it was the casting of Robert Downey Jr. or the hiring of Guy Ritchie as director, all signs pointed to anything but a throwback version of Sherlock Holmes. This is especially true considering that director Guy Ritchie's methods can be classified as fast and erratic, which definitely doesn't match the slow build up found in most Holmes tales.

Yet, for the day and age we live in, one that is more dictated by a faster pace and weird fetish for big explosions, it would've been silly for me to expect a Holmes film along the lines of a "Gosford Park", so I can't fault Warner Bros. for succumbing to public demand. With that being said, I can fault them for using a shoddy script. The key to any Holmes story and any mystery in general is that the plot itself is inspired and actually full of intrigue. If the plot is not deep with unnerving or sleuth like moments, then it isn't a mystery at all. It's simply a pretender. Furthermore, without a mystery present, then a character like Holmes is rather trivial since the whole point of his existence is solving rubric cube like crimes. Unfortunately, the script renders the character of Holmes useless because there really isn't a mystery present for him to solve. Instead, the screenplay falls back on the conventions of a tent pole blockbuster as it's not interested in creating a combination of mental and physical conflict for Holmes. No, it's merely focused on honing or playing up the physical prowess of this 'new' incarnation.

So, instead of building us to a villain or down a spiral staircase of mystery, we know everything we need to know. No intrigue, no twists, no nothing. If anything it plays out like your basic good vs. evil story arc. This would've been much easier to swallow had the screenplay actually created an interesting villain, but by the end when Holmes offers his solution monologue, the film's villain Lord Blackwood seemingly had nothing going for him to even begin to think he was a worthy adversary. Obviously this only further cements Holmes as an astute detective, but also cheapens everything that lead up to the films anti-climatic last scenes. It almost feels like the films plot would be better served for either a short story or a subplot versus sustaining an entire feature length film. With that being said, where the story lacks, the film's incredible cast and kinetic direction pick it up when it needs it the most.

As most people probably would expect, Robert Downey Jr. gives another charismatic and funny performance as Sherlock Holmes. He's cunning, smart, and most of all has a wit that would seemingly match the level of his I.Q. Found alongside Downey Jr. as Holmes straight man Watson is Jude Law, who's subtle candor often surprises with hilarity and true moments of "kick ass". Both Law and Downey Jr. play extremely well off each other, as they create a duo that in many ways matches the chemistry found between Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in "Dumb and Dumber". Although I guess this would be the polar opposite in regards to the level of intelligence. Assisting Law and Downey Jr. in ramping up a stale script is director Guy Richie, who despite my prior doubts does a pretty good job with the material as he injects a sense of urgency and life into the film. Such an example would be how Guy Richie demonstrates Holmes breakdown of not only a crime, but also his fighting abilities. Using slow motion (a common tool used by Richie in the past), Richie is able to aptly run through Holmes thought processes in a way that is not only stylistic, but fun to watch.

In the end, "Holmes" is certainly a fun film to watch. There is action, comedy, and a great score, but the problem is that the fun is disrupted by a plot that is bland and doesn't differentiate itself from typical blockbuster fodder. Furthermore, the film's script lacks any kind of mysterious punch to truly challenge the intelligence of Holmes and the viewers. Sure Holmes and Watson may come to a few action packed challenges, but they lose their luster when in the end there was no real danger and no substantial challenge worthy for these literary heroes.

"Avatar" will make your jaw drop (4.25/5)

The imagination is a tool that is always available. It's a tool that can whisk a person away in a matter of seconds. It's from imagination where worlds and stories are created. Yet, although our imagination knows no bounds, technology does. That's why in the world of film when there is an advancement of technology it's always exciting because we have come that much closer to what seems like the unattainable: capturing the entire scope of our imagination. Well, we've come many, many steps closer with "Avatar", a film so rich and grand that it will surely amaze you at the heights it achieves.

As indicated, "Avatar" left me stunned and I was one of the few people who was skeptical of Cameron's hype machine. Yet, from the opening minutes to the very end, I was amazed by the special effects mastery that Cameron and his team unleashed on me. The way I felt is how I imagine film goers felt when they first saw King Kong come to life in 1933 or when Peter Jackson brought the Lord of the Rings to the big screen. A world you thought would never come to fruition is suddenly letting you in; allowing you to become an inhabitant. Much like the work of Tolkien, James Cameron has created a world (named Pandora) full of beautiful and vibrant flora, fauna, language and characters. These aspects make Cameron's planet breathe as if it was living, but what's far more impressive than the depth Cameron creates is how seamless Pandora was. Honestly, nothing looked like it was shot via a green screen. Everything seemed natural and organic; almost as if Cameron himself scouted the location and shot the film there.

This idea of the film being seamless further immersed me into the world Cameron constructed, as nothing had me doubting that this place really existed. To further the experience of Pandora, Cameron also cleverly incorporated the use of 3D technology for the film's entirety. Certainly films that have incorporated 3D techniques have done so merely as a gimmick to create a singular scene "jump" out at the audience, but "Avatar" is different. Instead of making body parts or anything else jump out at the audience, Cameron does something quite unique: he invites the audience into the film. Yes, there are some parts where the film "jumps" out, but in all respects Cameron has used 3D in an extremely effective way by seemingly putting the world within your grasp and around your head. For me, this aspect created many moments of whimsy where I felt I was actually there on Pandora or stuck in the middle of a battle scene. It's one thing to create a world, but to transport an audience there is a feat few filmmakers have accomplished and Cameron does so in spades.

With the fantastic special effects aside, one of my biggest concerns about "Avatar" was the script. More specifically would the visual spectacle outweigh the story? This was mostly a concern because of Cameron's previous endeavor "Titanic", but also because the film's story arc is a retread on many films. Well, I'm happy to say that although the story of "Avatar" is very familiar, Cameron manipulates it just enough to create an identifiable and heartfelt story. Sure, there are moments of cheese filled dialogue and sometimes Cameron indulges in the melodramatic, but the story has enough build up and character development that I couldn't help but get swept up in the emotion of this intergalactic romance.

Of course the story is the most important aspect of any film and Cameron crafts a good one, but what's the most important, at least in the case of "Avatar" is that it has set a new standard in special effects. Nothing about the special effects shouts "$400 million". Instead it comes across as a real and tangible world with no hint of manipulation. It only consists of you, its language, its inhabitants, and its history. Never has a film (maybe aside from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy) come along and truly created a world so authentic and full of life. To say seeing "Avatar" is an experience would be an understatement; it's the closest we will ever be to our wildest dreams.

"Public Enemies" is an exceptional and more romantic gangster flick (4.25/5)

There have been many gangster/mobster films to have come and gone through the course of time. All have seemingly had the slick production values, bombastic scores, and thousands upon thousands of bullets blazing through a dark night. These certain attributes certainly work their way throughout Michael Mann's "Public Enemies", but there is something different about Mann's gangster flick: it offers a tender side to the American gangster.

But, before we get to that point let's talk about the film as a whole. The film opens up in 1933 as we follow bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) breaking out of a prison with relative ease. From there he robs a few banks and through his unscrupulous actions, catches the eye of J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup),whose rather newly founded organization (something called the FBI) is desperate to make Dillinger a defining catch. From this comes the introduction of Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) the man assigned to lead the FBI to glory and bring John Dillinger to justice. This sets off a game of cops and robbers between Purvis and Dillinger. This type of story, with both ends of the law caught in a game of cat and mouse, isn't new territory for Mann who explored such a tale in his crime epic "Heat". Granted his explorations into the relationship between the law and unlawful was much more on point in "Heat", Mann still delivers an interesting, if not great perspective on those who enforce laws and those who break them.

Of course aside from the law based tug of war Mann has crafted, a lot of credit must be given to Bale and Depp who create fascinating and what seem to be accurate portrayals of their characters. Bale is great as Purvis, a man who finds himself increasingly adjusting his own morals to make the ends justify the means. Bales counterpart Depp is pretty good too. As a matter of fact, Depp is so charismatic and charming, that he makes it extremely hard not to root for John Dillinger. Depp's great performance was further cemented when I watched a highlight reel of Dillinger and I must say, Depp didn't play Dillinger anymore than he completely channeled him. Yet, the most interesting aspect of "Public Enemies" (and oddly enough where the best performance comes from) is not entirely on the chase of John Dillinger. No, as I alluded to earlier, it's the romantic side of Dillinger. Amidst all the bank robberies and the vicious hunt by the FBI, Dillinger meets a woman by the name of Billie Frechette who is played by Marion Cotillard. Cotillard without a doubt has the best performance in the film as she delivers the emotional core to the final moments of Dillinger's saga. Her character not only allows us to see how vicious and desperate the FBI was in catching Dillinger, but also to see a sensitive, humanistic side of Dillinger. I'm going to go even further and say that the best scenes were not the bank robberies or a gun fight. Instead, the best scenes were between Cotillard and Depp (Billie and John), as they are full with great chemistry, romance, and tragedy.

But don't worry about "Public Enemies" being a 'soft' and completely sensitive film. Despite my many uses of the word "romantic", there is plenty of violence and battle wounds to list this film as a 'gangster film'. Yet, there is a little more at stake here than time capsule-esque set pieces and gun battles. There are questions about the law, but most importantly "Public Enemies" is more focused on humanizing the legend of John Dillinger versus sensationalizing it which is something most gangster films fail to even consider.

"Whatever Works" doesn't really work (3.25/5)

It seems like there was a point in time where Woody Allen could seemingly do no wrong. With films like "Annie Hall" and "The Purple Rose of Cairo" in his canon, Allen was the go to guy for comedic ingenuity. Yet as timed passed on, Mr. Allen has seemed to lost his touch. Certainly over the last decade he's made a few good films ("Match Point" and "Vicky, Cristina, Barcelona"), but none have even come close to capturing the magical run Allen had from the 70's to the mid 90's. As much as it dismays me to say it, "Whatever Works" is more of the recent Woody; not the classic Woody.

This is all the more surprising considering that "Whatever Works" was a script Allen has been sitting on for years; one he wrote during what was seemingly his prime. Yet, one would wonder why he was sitting on a script for over thirty years. Was it because it truly wasn't a good piece of work? For the most part yes. "Whatever Works" is an underdeveloped comedic contraption that plays out like a disjointed sitcom. The film follows Boris Yellnikoff (Larry David) who, before he makes a failed attempt at suicide, comes to see life as a thread of worthless moments strung together. People, love, religion, etc. are all worthless in his worldview. This is a rather bleak view, especially when Boris is nearing the end of his life, but on a random night, Boris comes across a young Mississippi woman by the name of Melodie St. Ann Celestine (Evan Rachel Wood) sitting in a garbage pile outside of his apartment. Melodie is far from home with no place to stay, so she convinces Boris to let her stay at his place.

From this point on there is a considerable bit of entertaining banter between Wood and David, but things turn dull when Allen approaches a plot point that seemingly mimics his life. This all happens while Allen tosses on subplots that involve the exploits of Melodie's parents who come to the door of Boris in search of their daughter. I understand the point Allen is trying to make with the film and its varying plot points, as he muses over the randomness of life as well as how people reason, but the film as a whole never fully connects. Instead of creating a film that's zany with some restraint, Allen just lets everything spiral out of control into a somewhat, philosophical funny mess.

Even though I think the film is extremely half-baked, I'm going to slightly contradict myself by saying the film was able to put a consistent smile on my face. This was not due to the script or even most of the cast, it was brought on by the full hearted efforts by Larry David and Evan Rachel Wood who give performances that light up the screen. To no one's surprise David plays a neurotic extremely well, and Wood is simply adorable. When together,both have a chemistry that is endearing and refreshing.In all honesty I could watch a movie with just those two interacting. But, this aspect is also what makes the film even more disappointing considering Allen wasn't able to place these performances in a tighter, more cohesive film. It's almost as if they go to waste. I guess that would be the common issue with "Whatever Works": it's all kind of a waste. Aside from the performances by Wood and David, this is a project that Allen should've kept on the shelf.

"Precious" soars on its performances and honesty (4.25/5)

Someone once said to me that they only go to the movies to escape from everyday life; not to embrace it. I guess that is a rather valid statement. After all, if someone wanted to experience the trials and tribulations of life they simply had to look at themselves. But our own lives are not representative of anyone else's but our own. Much like books, newspapers, television or any other medium, film not only allows a form of escapism, but opens us up to different walks of life. Such a life is that of Clarice Precious Jones, the title character of writer/director Lee Daniels' "Precious".

"Precious" tells the tale of a 16 year old girl who lives an un-charmed life. When the film opens up, Precious is living in Harlem in the late 80's. Precious can't really read or write and she's pregnant with her second child. Because she is pregnant, Precious is suspended from school and is coerced into going to an alternative school so she can get her GED. To make matters worse though, her second child has come at the hands of her father, who has used her as a means to contain his own sexual desires. Lastly, as if things could get any worse, Precious has a volatile relationship with her mother who verbally and physically abuses her on a day to day basis. Things look very grim for Precious, yet what Precious has is the intent to live a better and more loving life, a life where she is a starlet; loved by everyone in the world. It's this ideal and her desire that propel her past acts of abuse and rape. Even if it may seem far off considering the circumstances, it gives Precious a reason to breathe.

And it's this desire that pushes Precious to change her life. Such a change begins when she goes to the aforementioned alternative school and finds herself in a class that pushes her to not only grow from an educational standpoint, but one that challenges her to see that she is worth something after all. It's at this point, where there is a struggle between Precious' moments of jubilation at school and trials of hell at home, Lee Daniel's film succeeds. It succeeds because Daniels is able to effectively demonstrate the affects a loving or a monstrous environment can have on a person. Playing out much like a psychological case study, Daniels creates a gritty, stirring look at not only inner city life, but also abusive relationships and he does so with grace. Never does he make the character of Precious seem pitiful or overly sympathetic. Instead he is able to create three dimensional environments and characters, where one can not only breakdown how Precious came to be, but also how her main abuser (her mother) progressively became a monster.

This notion is especially important considering it keeps "Precious" from becoming your typical 'after school special' film. It rarely goes for those overly dramatic moments, it doesn't offer up sage like wisdom at the end about socioeconomic status, and it doesn't hang its characters on one note stereotypes. It's a living, breathing piece of life. Now, this is not to say that Daniels has crafted the perfect film. At times some of his scenes slip into the melodramatic, but when he fails, it's the performances that keep his worst scenes a float. Featuring a cast full of many surprises (i.e. Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz, Mo'Nique), "Precious" is a film full of strong performances. Yet, none are better than that pf Gabby Sidibe and Mo'Nique, who play Precious and Precious' mother respectively. Ms. Sidibe's performance is quite amazing considering this is her first real acting role. Sidibe is not only able to handle the tough material, but she is also able to create a character that is authentic and real; not a Hallmark movie event in the waiting.

Accompanying Sidibe in the rank of great performances is Mo'Nique who delivers a tremendous turn of her own. Mo'Nique, mostly know from her comedic performances, will turn heads. Her performance is so dark and so intense, it honestly made me wonder if this was really "the Mo'Nique". Her performance is one of the more complex roles in the film and she flat out owned it. In many respects her character could've come across as just a villain, but as demonstrated in her final scene, Mo'Nique is able to create a character that goes beyond a villain and becomes a faulty human being with major psychological issues who we can on some level sympathize with. If anything Mo'Nique's performance is representative of the entire film: it refuses to be a film that takes the easy way out with cliché archetypes and cable television dramatics.

"Precious" is quite harrowing, and most people will walk in knowing the film will not be tied up into a pretty bow, but that's what most endearing about precious. It's not escapism, it's real life. It shows us a life we've probably only seen from a stilted perspective. Furthermore, it allows us to not only search for a sense of hope within anguish, but to also appreciate our own lives. After all, things could always be worse. This aspect is what makes films like "Precious" a worthy experience. Certainly, it's a hard watch, but one that's all the more enriching and powerful as it opens us to a life that is just as troubling, but just as hopeful.

"Funny People" is funny, but left a little bit to be desired (4/5)

Judd Apatow has accomplished what many directors have attempted but failed to do: blend raunchy comedy with a moderate dose of heart. As seen in "Knocked Up" and "The Forty Year Old Virgin", Apatow is able to create a hilarious and poignant romp that doesn't treat its characters or setup like a complete joke. With each of his films, Apatow has seemingly increased his flair for real life dramatics, while still maintaining his dirty joke mantra. This is why it should come to no one's surprise that Apatow's newest film "Funny People" has a storyline that is far more serious and adult than his previous endeavors. After all, the film takes a somewhat dark look at life and death, as its main character George Simmons (played by Adam Sandler) is diagnosed with a rare, deadly blood disorder.

So, first off I'd like to commend Apatow for taking a risk with this film. He is branching out and in many respects growing as a writer and director. Surely he could've stayed content with writing dick jokes and banking $100 million at the box office, but there is something quite bold in his effort. Certainly "Funny People" isn't a perfect film, but it has moments of brevity that I never really expected out of Apatow. This is not only a testament to his writing ability, but also his ability as a director to contain and maintain a scene and his actors. His ability to get the best out of his actors is best demonstrated in the performance of Adam Sandler, who shows a depth and range that he has only effectively reached in "Punch-Drunk Love", a film that channels Sandler's boyish rage into fits of love. That same rage is channeled here, but in a more subdued way;one that Sandler's character aims at himself as he fills with regret. With such a character that bounces in between self pity and anger, Apatow and Sandler could've created a character devoid of any sympathy, but alas Apatow and Sandler handle the character with grace and dignity as they flesh him out into a tragic figure with reasoning. We come to understand him as fragile goods.

Aside from a direction standpoint, Apatow demonstrates that he knows how to write drama , but also shows he is a little rough around the edges. I say this entirely because "Funny People" feels like two different movies rolled into one. The first half of the film follows George Simmons as he comes to grip with his now fading life, while befriending Ira Wright (played effectively by Seth Rogen), an aspiring comedian looking for his big break. The two create a bond that is quite moving and consistently funny as they ponder over the "what was" and "what could've been" in regards to their lives. This half of the film is where Apatow is at his best as he balances the morose idea of death with the hilarity and awkwardness of everyday life. Even more so, Apatow delivers a rather introspective look at not only fame, but also the construction of a comedian. Granted, we've seen the ideal of fame placed on the cross numerous times, but very few films have deconstructed it in the vain of a comedian. This different vantage point allows for the first half of the film to be a breath of fresh air.

With me now done gushing over the first half of the film, I must say that the second half is definitely weak. The last half follows George (along with Ira) as he attempts to regain the love of the one girl who got away, Laura (played by Leslie Mann). Now, this particular half gets my respect because it refuses to create a storybook ending for George and in many ways is a great challenge for Apatow's characters, but it ultimately feels like the love story of another movie. There are certainly great moments, but when considered in its entirety, it lacks a proper segue, or any legitimate set up from the first half. Certainly we know George and Ira, but they're the only established parts of the half. George's love interest Laura never has a full introduction prior to this point and suddenly she is whisked in with George and a redemptive love story begins. Now, had Apatow or his editor addressed this issue, the film would've been cohesive and one entity, yet this aspect was not achieved. I must reiterate that my knocking of the second half doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. It was certainly rushed, but I actually liked it to a degree. Hell, I would even go as far to say that it's funnier than the first half, but when looked at in comparison to what came before it, the experience of the second half is a disjointed one at best.

This notion makes me a little depressed considering that if Apatow would've honed in on the second half and created a proper arc regarding the character of Laura, "Funny People" would've arguably been the best comedy to come out of this decade. Obviously the film is funny which should be expected, but had the dramatic flair matched across the board, it would've truly been a crowning achievement for Apatow. Instead, we're left with a flawed film that seems like two different pieces from two different pies. But, Apatow's ambition, the performances, the jokes, and a stirring first half make up for a disjointed, if not amusing second half. Certainly nothing to be ashamed of Mr. Apatow.