"The Messenger" is a small, but powerfully acted film (4/5)

Throughout the years there have been numerous films that try and capture the varying angles that embody war. With the Iraq war being one of the more defining moments for the world in the last decade, it should come to no one's surprise that we've see numerous Iraq based films, but very few that have resonated and found an audience. This in part because America just doesn't want to see a film about a war that is currently in progress. It just seems to be in bad taste, especially when you factor in the idea that many people don't think America should have gone to war in the first place. So now it's bearing some annoyance. But, I think another important factor that seems to have people skipping war (especially based on Iraq) films is that there have simply been very few films that have been good regarding the subject matter. Hell, most are preachy, liberal, and over handed films that rely more on convention than providing an introspective look at war on both the battle lines and home front. This is not say that the films regarding war that have been released over the last decade aren't good, but films like "Home of the Brave", "The Valley Elah", "Stop Loss", etc. don't elevate the material beyond sentimental soap boxing.

Yet, this year is different. With the release of a film like "The Hurt Locker", an adrenaline pumping film that looks at the final month of a bomb defusing squad, as well as the drug like effects war has on some soldiers, I can't help but feel there is a budding new perspective on war. This idea is further pushed by a film like "The Messenger" which gives us a perspective we've never seen on film: the life and times of an army messenger. These are the guys who go door to door delivering death notices to the family of a fallen soldier. It's a perspective that seems rather one dimensional. After all, the only thing these soldiers do is serve notice, but I would argue (as would the film) that this job is quite important and bears an emotional weight that could burden just about anyone. Personally speaking, I couldn't be that person. I couldn't go door to door, letting people know that their daughters, sons, husbands, or wives have just passed away in a land far, far away. I simply couldn't and such an emotional notion is well on display in "The Messenger". As both of our protagonists, SSgt Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) and Capt. Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) wrestle with the emotional ramifications being a messenger has.

SSgt. Will Montgomery has just returned from Iraq (he's home due to an injury) and as a means to serve his last months in the army, he is placed in the Army's Casualty Notification service. Through this he is paired up with Capt. Tony Stone, a lifelong army man who sees no greater purpose than serving his country. Between the two men, they struggle to get on the same page in regards to how they should approach giving notification of the dead. Captain Stone feels their delivery should be based on a script and showing no emotion, while Montgomery feels a humanistic touch would be far better than the army's third person, robotic delivery. In either event, both men can't even pretend to know what to expect when they walk into a person's home and let them know that their family member has passed away in the line of duty. Yet, extracting sympathy isn't the film's main goal. At its heart, the film is a character study of Will Montgomery and the emotions he works through as his life reveals itself to be an empty shell. His girlfriend has left him, his body is injured, and most of all he has to continuously be a messenger of doom. Writer/Director Overman does a great job of not only establishing Montgomery, but also allows us to slowly invade his mind. This is also a testament to Ben Foster's performance which is fantastic as he forms a man filled with anxieties and disappointment. On par with Foster's performance, and if not even better, is the performance of Woody Harrelson, who delivers an intense, and thought provoking characterization.

When a film like this is so heavily based on its characters, it's essential for the actors to deliver great performances as a means to keep the audience engaged and connected. Needless to say this happens, as Foster and Harrelson play well off one an other's insecurities and carry much of the film on their backs with great ease. Yet, the problem I have with this film is the scenes that involve Foster's and Harrelson's characters delivering the casualty notifications. The first few scenes pack a punch and are emotionally wrought, but after that, they tend to become tedious and almost stale. Not to say that the scenes aren't relevant to the film or characters, but it just seemed like the same scenes were being repeated, except with different races and classes of characters. With just two or three scenes regarding the notifications, the delivery of such sad news would've been far more effective. My annoyance with the continuous occurrence of these scenes is still quite small, but it is matched with my slight disinterest in a subplot regarding Foster's character and that of a widowed wife played by Samantha Morton. This particular subplot ends up working somewhat well as a means to show Montgomery's arc, but it's lackluster in its conviction, and ultimately is underwritten. Samantha Morton does an admirable job of trying to lend this subplot some credibility, but for me it didn't gel completely. Yet, these are merely small negatives that stem from a film that offers a different vantage point on war; a vantage point we've never really scene in a film. Also, the crux of the film lies in the performances and without a doubt, "The Messenger" boasts terrific performances that not only carry the film, but will certainly carry you into the mindset war places upon it's soldiers and their kin.

"In the Loop" is an uproarious, foul mouthed satire (4.5/5)

There was a little show on television a few years back called "Arrested Development" that you may have heard of or may have watched. There are a couple of reasons why I love this show: (1) It had characters who were never compromised and (2) the show possessed a razor edge wit that had jokes flying at a high rate. In my eyes this is the epitome of great comedy, and I must say that such a comedy doesn't come along often. Thankfully for me, "In the Loop" is that kind of comedy; a comedy that is brash, bold, and beyond witty. It's a comedy that has laughs that last past their initial punch line. The film, although quite funny, also has some sharp and dark satire as it looks at how a country (i.e. the United States and Britain) behaves in a political arena in order to achieve what they want.

This particular aspect of the film is set up almost in the same vain as when the United States entered the Iraq War in 2003. Through communication with Britain's government, the head honchos from the United States are pressing an invasion in to a Middle Eastern country. Although it's not explicitly stated and a time period isn't given, we can assume the film is a farce on the Iraq War. The hijinx begins with a slip of the tongue heard on British radio from Britain's Minister for International Development Simon Foster ( a terrific Tom Hollander), who when asked about a potential war in the Middle East, accidentally says a war is 'unforeseeable'. On a local scale, Simon gets a ribbing from Britain's Prime Minister's right hand man, Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), but on a more international stage, Simon's words gather the attention of an international media who hound him everywhere he goes to see if he has any knowledge about a pressing war in the Middle East. Presumably to no one's surprise, Simon actually knows nothing about a pending war, but that doesn't stop a United States government official who sees an opportunity in Simon as a means to start a war. Soon Simon is asked to come to the United States, with his rookie aide Toby (Chris Addison) by his side, to throw his hat in the "war" arena. Yet, Simon finds himself pulled in opposite directions as the pro-war front and anti-war fronts try to use him as their goats, while the British government tries to make him 'straddle the line'.

The plot becomes a little convoluted at times, but it continuously rotates on rather simple ideas and succeeds because its characters, even though there are a lot of them, are well defined and rarely go off point. Whether it's a culture clash between the governments of the United States and Britain, or the political tug of war that occurs between two political agendas, "In the Loop" is always delivering a tongue lashing to the political machine we live amongst. A lot of credit goes to the screenplay, which boasts some terrific turns, but most of the hilarity is in the hands of the actors who deliver their jokes and banter with ease. Each scene is constructed with rapid fire dialogue that peppers every moment with balls and energy. Some of the dialogue may be hard to hear or may need to be watched again in order to understand their full gravity, but the dialogue is great regardless of such diversions. If anything, it adds a level of replay value to the film. Much like the dialogue,the cast as a whole is great, but the one actor who truly steals every scene is Peter Capaldi, who plays the foul mouthed Malcolm Tucker, a strategist for Britain's Prime Minister. Everything Capaldi says is morally inapprehensible, but it's hilarious all the same. In many respects he's the voice of reason amongst the meek, the selfish,and the dumb that fill our governments.

Another aspect I love about this film is its ability to keep a balanced perspective throughout. It doesn't hate upon the war mongering politicians anymore than it does the passive-aggressive anti-war supporters. It doesn't provide one note answers to the problems the it mocks. It's simply in the moment, trying to capture, at least from a comical perspective, the seedy inner workings of politics and the abuse of media from both sides. Is it essential for a movie like this to be balanced? Not particularly, but the film is all the better for it if it can find a way to skew towards the middle versus to either side. After all, a good satire is one that can lambast both sides of the argument without being too pretentious in its efforts. I'd say "In the Loop" reaches this level of greatness and much like my beloved "Arrested Development", "In the Loop" is a film that consistently delivers the laughs with ferocity. That's all I can ask for in a comedy.

"Brothers" is a well acted melodrama (3.5/5)

When there is a fantastic foreign film, one that seemingly crosses oceans in a single bound, there is inevitably a Hollywood remake on the way. Some of these remakes are good. Such is the case when Martin Scorsese got his hands on the Asian film "Infernal Affairs" which went on to be adapted in to the Oscar winning "The Departed". So, sometimes there are good remakes, but more often than not the foreign remake leaves much to be desired. This can be witnessed in the recent trend for taking Japanese horror films and watering them down to only make thirteen year old girls scream. Now, in the case of "Brothers", which is a remake of a Danish film with the same title, I'd say it falls somewhere in between the good and the bad the foreign remake has to offer.

The film tells the tale of two brothers, Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Sam (Tobey Maguire). Tommy, who is being released from jail when the movie opens, is practically a dead beat. Upon his release he has no ambition, no job, no money, and his father always unfairly compares him to his brother Sam. Sam on the other hand is quite successful. He has a beautiful wife, Grace (Natalie Portman), two adorable little girls, and the respect of not only his family, but his peers (he is a Captain in the Army). Where his brother Tommy becomes aggressive under pressure, Sam is cool and always in control. Initially the brothers get along great, as they support one another unconditionally. But things take a turn for the worse when Sam is sent to Iraq. While over in Iraq, Sam's Blackhawk is shot down and he is presumed dead, although he is actually still alive, but is captured by insurgents. Under the guise that Sam is dead, Tommy finds himself compelled to assist Sam's family through the grieving process and from this finds a sense of redemption as he grows closer and closer to his sister in law and nieces. Eventually though, Sam makes it back home from Iraq, and he is a changed and troubled man. A man mentally distraught and out of touch with reality. Soon the stability Sam once shared with his brother and family is rattled as he behaves in erratic and violent ways, as well as insinuating that Tommy and Grace have a sexual relationship.

From this comes two exploratory threads: the effects of war on a human being and how war affects the cohesiveness of a family. The former thread is common place in most war based films now, but in the case of "Brothers", it's executed quite well. When Sam is in Iraq as a P.O.W., director Jim Sheridan delivers an assortment of taut scenes that push the character of Sam to a new level as his days in captivity continue to build. Suddenly a man who is supposed to be calm and collective becomes full of rage as he is forced to act in heinous ways. These particular scenes of Sam in Iraq are essential for understanding his descent in the last half of the film as he tries to slide back into family life. But, for as a good as these scenes are, Sheridan doesn't seem to capture the same dramatic weight when the film focuses on the family life when Sam is absent. Certainly, Sheridan adequately captures the positive effect Tommy has on the family and Grace, as this is done in a hand full of scenes that build a terrific chemistry between Gyllenhaal and Portman, but never does he drum up honest grief from them. Never do I feel the character's sadness and loneliness, aside from a few side scenes that consist of Portman crying.The emotion isn't as palpable as it could be and seems to be glossed over. The same could be said for the whole brother dynamic between Gyllenhaal and Maguire. Their family life together seems rather formulaic, and in all honesty plays out much like day time soap opera. We really don't know why these two characters act the way they do around each other aside from the fact that they are brothers. An exploration, if not a subplot, would've made their relationship far more authentic than what it was and would've made their sacrifices for one another more understandable.

But, the film does gain some dramatic heftiness when Sam returns home and his paranoia begins to kick in. It's at this moment that Tobey Maguire really shines as he slowly unravels his character in grand fashion, which eventually leads to an intense breakdown. Through the acting of Maguire, Sheridan is able to find a gateway in to a soldier with PSTD, and through Maguire does the real family drama become far more pertinent and tangible. Don't get me wrong, Gyllenhaal and Portman do a fine job with their characters, but their game is elevated when Maguire pushes them to the limits. So, in my ways, the film works only when Sam's plight and Maguire's skills are on display. Without them, the film would be a horrible remake. With them, the film is straddling the line.

"The Lovely Bones" is a visually stunning, revenge thriller (3.75/5)

When I heard Peter Jackson was adapting Alice Sebold's bestseller The Lovely Bones, I went out right away and bought the book. After becoming a fan of Jackson when I saw "The Lord of the Rings" and most importantly "King Kong", I was intrigued as to what Jackson was going to do with this critically acclaimed novel. I opened the book the night I bought it; read forty pages and then I stopped. I haven't read the book since. This is not to say the book was bad. It was actually quite good, but I'm not really the reading type. I'm more of a visual person hence why I love films so much. With that little biographical moment aside, my lack of reading has allowed me to view Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lovely Bones as its own entity. This is crucial because more often than not people have a hard time separating the book from the adaptation, which causes some to walk away from an adaptation with much disappointment because the film never matched up with the vision they had for the source material. Yet, out of curiosity, I asked a handful of people how the book played out as a means to see how the two compared. I'll admit, if you're a fan of the book, you're not likely to love the film.

But, I insist as a purveyor of film, that if you do plan on seeing the "The Lovely Bones", you should look at it with fresh eyes. After all, it's someone else's adaptation of Sebold's novel. More importantly, it's Peter Jackson's interpretation, and what an interpretation it is. Jackson's film in some ways deals with the grieving process of a child's death, but it also builds its laurels on two separate angles of a murder: the griever(s) and the murderer. On one side we have the Salmon family, whose lives are shaken when the oldest daughter Susie(Saoirse Ronan) is murdered in cold blood. From this the family begins to crumble as the father, Jack (Mark Wahlberg) desperately searches for answers at the dismay of his wife Abigail (Rachel Weisz). This obviously causes a breakdown in not only the marriage, but on the family's other children Buckley and Lindsey. Opposing the mindset of the family is that of the killer, George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) who is breathing a sigh of content when no one is really searching for him. Tucci's performance as Harvey is breathtaking as he takes on a complicated and sickened man, who gets a perverse pleasure out of stalking and murdering women. Definitely not a role one would expect Tucci to play, but he does it extremely well. So, here are two different angles from one despicable event. A family in shambles and a man gaining satisfaction from the pain his deed has brought. It's this perspective that Jackson does quite admirably, as it sets the tone for the last half of the film that in many respects becomes a thriller, as Jack and Lindsey become hot in pursuit of Mr. Harvey.

But despite the fact I was engaged in the form the film takes, I honestly don't think Jackson's handling of the family drama was as strong as it could've been. I don't know if it was the editing or the script itself, but at times the film delivered what should've been complex issues with simple means. Such an example would be the use of Susie's grandma (Susan Sarandon), who is practically wasted as a joke, but somehow goes through a transformation that we just have to accept versus actually seeing it occur. But aside from some miscues, Jackson created enough drama to build up ample sympathy for the family, as well as hatred towards Mr. Harvey, in order for me to get caught up in his ethereal thriller. Building the film around sympathy and hate is not only essential for the sake of the audience's involvement, but it's also pertinent in understanding Susie's state of mind as she watches down from Heaven ( or an in-between state). This is further supplemented by Saoirse Ronan's performance, who with her blue eyes, embodies the mere idea of innocence lost on Earth and the lack of justice that may reside in the afterlife. Much like her performance in "Atonement", Ronan shows a depth that is beyond her years as she delivers a vast range of emotions one would expect Susie to feel in Heaven. Matching Ronan's beautiful performance is Heaven itself, as Peter Jackson does a marvelous job constructing his vision for Susie's own personal kingdom come. It's a place that is both alluring and daunting, for it represents everything Susie can do and everything she can't. When coupled with Brian Eno's angelic score, Heaven is a place filled with joy and sadness; a place with constraints.

With all of that being said, it should come to no surprise when I say that Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones" is a worthy family drama/thriller that is built on two great performances. Some will say that Jackson's adaptation is far more focused on the crafting of Heaven than it is of a good story, but I disagree. I think all of the parts of a good story are present and in motion. Furthermore, for as beautiful as it is to look at Jackson's Heaven, there is something more sinister boiling underneath such beauty and wonderment. It's a visual representation as to how happiness has a low ceiling when grief and vengeance are its trusses.

"A Serious Man" is the type of film that gains power long after the viewing (4.25/5)

Growing up in Minnesota and being a fan of films, I've always had some idea as to who the Coen Brothers were. I'd hear their names on and off through the years via the local news or review shows along the lines of Siskel and Ebert. Yet, as a film novice, I commonly associated their names with their most mainstream works. The most notable ones being "Fargo" and "The Big Lebowski". Well, maybe Lebowski wasn't initially that mainstream, but you get my point. But I saw a new side to the Coen brothers in my first year of college when I saw their film "Barton Fink" in my art of film class. I remember once the film was finished, I really didn't know what to think. In many ways I didn't get it then and I still don't get it now, but there was a mystery and philosophical undertone present that grasped me from the film's opening frame. For those of you who have seen "Barton Fink", I think you'd agree with me when I say that it's the type of movie that is extremely tough to digest. Especially tougher than the Coen brother's other films like "No Country for Old Men" and "Burn After Reading". But it has a certain aura to it that makes you think long after the film has ended.

That's why, if and when you watch the Coen brother's latest feature "A Serious Man", you'll understand why I think it plays more like "Barton Fink" than it does the Coen's previous efforts. It's certainly a dark film with a comedic edge, but it ends up creating more questions than it does answers, which is something that baffles most viewers, but not me. I relish a film that is willing to be more ambiguous than explicit. So, let's lay the foundation. "A Serious Man" drops us in the life of Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a 40 something Jewish man residing in the safe confines of St. Louis Park, Minnesota circa the late 60's. Everything seems to be going well for Larry. He's married, he has two kids( his son is on pace for his Bar Mitzvah), and he's on the list to be tenured as a professor. What a life Larry seems to be living. Oh, but things change and as most of those who've seen a Coen brothers film know, they change in dark and surprising ways. First, one of Larry's failing students is attempting to bribe him for a passing grade. Then, out of the blue, Larry's wife wants to divorce him in order to devote her time to her new lover Sy Ableman, who oddly enough is an acquaintance of Larry's. To make matters worse, Larry's son is having behavioral issues at school, his daughter is stealing money from him for a nose job, his brother is living in his house with no signs of leaving, and Larry's tenure at his college is in jeopardy when anonymous letters are being sent to the school that denigrate Larry.

Suddenly Larry's suburban dream begins to unravel in a hilarious fashion that brings on dark consequences for most of the characters involved. As with most Coen brothers movies, the film has a terrific cast that is more than willing to combine the Coen's dark, subversive humor with their grim plotting. Yet for as many surprising and funny twists the Coens toss at us, they truly score with their perspective of religion. See, initially Larry is a man who tries to rationalize the ways of the world through science and empirical formulas. But, as Larry's problems continue to swell, he soon feels that there has to be more to it all than scientific reasoning, and thus he finds a new way to rationalize his bad streak: it's all crafted by the hand of religion and now he must consult his rabbis. Through out the film, Larry consults two rabbis and attempts to ask a third why his life has been afflicted in such a fashion. Is it a sign from God that he needs to behave a certain way? Is this God's way of punishing him? Or is it simply bad timing? It's through Larry's conversations with the rabbis where we can see a man desperately searching for answers and getting no real response. With this idea, the Coen brothers explore the notion of whether life is a string of coincidences or part of some grand scheme run by God himself. Through this, they put the character of Larry through the meat grinder as he flips back and forth trying to find answers that his religion and science can't provide him with. Actor Michael Stuhlbarg does a terrific job as Larry as he is able to capture the rising anxiety of a man who finds that the more he digs for the answers, the more questions he unearths.

What is a man to do? It's at this point that the Coen brothers deliver their best and work their way to an ending that is almost like a tease. I don't want to spoil it, but the film ends with two central characters possibly seeing their doom...or not. I say 'not' because the film's ending can have a variety of interpretations. This is especially true considering how the film has built a mythos revolving around religion, fate, and looking for symbols within life. This is a classic Coen brothers move. Not only are they stifling their characters, but the viewer as well, as they dare us to swim through the ambiguity and to determine our own resolution. Does the film's ending (or it's entirety) show the wrath of God descending on Larry, or is it simply Larry reading too far in to these random moments of his life? Or are the Coen's going meta and being critical of not only Larry, but also the audience in their search of finding some resolution and clarity within the film? About half way through the film, a character says to Larry "Please. Accept the mystery." This notion is the beauty of "A Serious Man", as it gives us the space to either 'accept the mystery' of Larry's life and move on, or to dig deeper, as a means to find a religious or scientific explanation. In any event, the film is an engaging piece of work that resembles our own rationalizations for the questions that seemingly have no answers.

"Moon" is good science fiction with an indie appeal (4.5/5)

Usually when a science fiction film comes along, it's usually at the behest of a major film studio and features state of the art special effects. In addition to special effects, more often than not the film boasts a big cast and extravagant ambition. As far as "Moon" is concerned, the film is without a doubt ambitious, but it's ambition lies in its use and isolation of a singular character, something that is more in tune with an indie drama than a science fiction film.

Written and directed by Duncan Jones, "Moon" tells the tale of Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell), a man finishing up a 3 year stay on the Moon for a corporation that uses Sam as a means to harvest fragments of the Moon to generate energy for Earth. Needless to say, Sam is on a solo mission, aside for a computer companion (who has a voice delivered by Kevin Spacey) that is on par with Hal 9000 from Stanley Kubrick's "A Space Odyssey",that is starting to weigh on him in ways that affect him both physically and psychologically. From the lack of fulfilling food, Sam is becoming emaciated. From the lack of human contact, Sam is starting to talk to himself, as well as his plants who he seemingly has constructed an imaginary soap opera world for. In another words, Sam is slowly losing touch with reality just as he's about to get back in touch with humanity. Yet, things begin to take a turn for the worse when Sam encounters a human being who looks just like him. Now, I don't want to spoil the next plot point because it sets the rest of the film up and the film takes a path that was pretty unexpected. The path that lies ahead ultimately takes a look at the effects of loneliness and the coping mechanisms that develop from within, as well as the philosophical understanding of what it means to be alive and the ability of having one's own distinct identity.

These introspective and philosophical angles are obviously interesting sticking points, but ultimately the film has to have a tremendous performance from Rockwell in order for it to truly succeed. After all, the film doesn't feature a massive story. Instead it features a much more intimate and isolated tale that is reminiscent of "Cast Away", where almost all of the film is built on a character who is practically an island. And much like Tom Hanks performance in "Cast Away", Sam Rockwell's performance delivers on every front and it's Sam's performance that makes each scene resonate and pop with depth. Whether it's a scene where he's talking to his plants or one where he's having a conversation with his doppelganger, Rockwell is able to embody the loneliness and desperation his character explicitly renounces. Without Rockwell, the film would have lost its emotional core and would have been just another neat looking independent film. But, when it's all said and done, we get a great film that does in fact look neat. It uses great effects and muted colors to not only place us on the Moon, but also deep within the heart of Sam's brooding state of mind. When the effects are coupled with a simple theme by Clint Mansell, "Moon" becomes a film that creates a cold and lonely world that will challenge you in the very same way that it challenges its one and only character.

"World's Greatest Dad" is an admirable, uneven attempt (3.5/5)

I've always have had a love/hate appeal to Robin Williams. I hate Robin Williams when he seemingly channels his "sugared" up kid persona, as he jumps from joke to joke, and voice to voice. Sometimes it's endearing, but more often than not it's just plain annoying. Where I tend to love Robin Williams is when he tones things down and channels his energy into more dramatic, introspective roles. If I had a choice, I'd obviously take "Good Will Hunting" Robin Williams over "Patch Adams" Robin Williams. In the case of "World's Greatest Dad", the material on paper seems like the right vehicle for the Robin Williams I like. And I must admit that Mr. Williams is quite good in this particular role, but aside from his performance, the film feels listless in its execution.

Written and directed by Bobcat Goldthwait, "World's Greatest Dad" follows the life of Lance Clayton (Williams), a struggling writer who just can't seem to get anything published. Accompanying his fading dreams of making it big are his struggles to connect with his son Kyle (Daryl Sabara),a vulgar, disrespectful teenager who has a pension for porn and asphyxiation, and his closeted girlfriend. In many respects, Lance's life is a failure by his accounts, but that doesn't stop him from trying to reach that celebrity peak. A peak that Lance eventually reaches through a disturbingly gruesome accident. An accident that will probably make a few people turn the film off. Yet, through this accident, the main points of Goldthwait's film comes through and at times he hits the right notes. Some of the most poignant topics Goldwaith tackles are the desire for fame and the politcal correctness of death. The former comes at the price of human life as Lance's character exploits someone's death as a means to enhance his own reach for the limelight. Such a look by Goldthwait is an interesting one as it dictates how in our society fame and success is the ultimate goal, and more often than not it's reached by any means necessary and at the expense of another.

Yet Goldthwait's exploration doesn't stop there as he also takes a look at how death can change people's preceptions of another. More specifically, when a certain character dies, the people around suddenly gravitate towards deceased and have a changed view of the person they once openly mocked. This is an aspect I find the most interesting about the film because it seems like when anyone dies, people suddenly bury the hatchet and pretend they had some kind of relevant relationship with the now deceased. It's almost as if years of history are sweeped clean and the two distant objects are connected. It's with this idea and the exploration of fame where Goldthwait gets a lot of credit, but for as true as his ideas are, they don't save his film from becoming uneven. Now the film's lack of balance isn't because of its pace. Instead it's skewed because the film is trying to be morbidly hilarious while still trying to cover serious moral ground. Often times this is where a film teeters on the brink of satire and disaster. In the case of "World's Greatest Dad", it goes back and forth between both areas. Certainly its satire is on point, but at times much of the plot points are either overly dramatic or comedically underutilized for the film to be entirely effective.

Furthermore, Goldthwait doesn't seem like he is able to counter his dark moments with timely comedic elements. More specifically, I don't think the film is able to let the scant dramatic moments sink in before Goldthwait moves on to a punch line. Which, for the sake of reiteration, makes the drama and comedy seem cheapened. Yet, these moments shouldn't completely define a film that has some good ideas (especially when they come together in an ending that is applause worthy), a good performance by Williams, and some decent comedy. Certainly the film isn't as precise in its execution as one would like, but it still bolsters some of the most daring moments to be seen in a movie this year.

"Me and Orson Welles" is a fun, inconsequential film (4/5)

If there was ever a film to be released in 2009 that felt like a film released in 1940, it would be "Me and Orson Welles". Now, I'm sure you'll say " Well, duh! The film takes place in that era, so how could it not possibly feel like the 1940's?" Yes, from a production side of things "Me and Orson Welles" has tremendous values, as it has seemingly captured the images and times of New York pre-World War II. But, my statement isn't based on the notion of capturing the 40's. No, it's based on the notion that Richard Linklater's film harkens back to the storytelling found in films from the 'golden age' of movies. What kind of stories are found from that time period? Easy, they're stories that seemingly float on cloud nine. Nothing bad really happens and nothing really important happens. To avoid generalization though, I'm not completely saying that films from that are era aren't important. Obviously films like "Citizen Kane", "Gone with the Wind", and "Casablanca" show the depth the time period has to offer, but if there was one phrase I could use to describe the era it would be "inconsequential fun".

Despite what may seem like a sour connotation to the aforementioned phrase, I must say that it is meant to be sweet. If there is one guarantee in my film life it's that if I pop in any film from the '40's, it's very likely that said film would be a pleasant, fun filled film that moves at a brisk pace with light aspirations, and more than likely, it would put a smile on my face. In respect to "Me and Orson Welles", it was a 1940's type of film for me. Throughout the film's dramatic lightness, I went along for the ride and had a smile from reel to reel. The film follows the life of Richard (Zac Efron), a bored student looking to make his big break as an actor. In what seems like a serendipitous venture to the Mercury Theatre, Richard happens to catch the eye of Orson Welles (Christan McKay), who in a weeks time is putting on his own rendition of Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar'. Richard receives the part of Lucius and as the production crew nears it's performance date, Richard starts to pine for Welles assistant, Sonja (Claire Danes). Needless to say, both Richard and the production crew do a little bit of growing up with one another.

From the small description I offered, you could probably guess that the film is a coming of age film, but this aspect of the film is a rather weak component of Linklater's film. The same could be said with the love story that occurs between Richard and Sonja. This could be in part because of the slow boil chemistry found between Efron and Danes, but this is something I won't completely hold against the film. Aside from these life moments, the best part of Linklater's film is its depiction of the creation process, as well as the performance of Christian McKay as Orson Welles. Although I've never been part of a play or Broadway production,I imagine that with so many moving parts contingent on so many cues that it would be a chaotic experience. This particular aspect is in full bloom, as Linklater captures the hilarious breakdowns and triumphs of putting on a show. And when you toss in a megalomaniac persona like Orson Welles, the chaos becomes more enhanced.

Obviously when a film has a role that focuses on such a prominent and demanding figure like Orson Welles, you better have a damn good actor to fill his shoes. Thankfully for Richard Linklater, Christian McKay was more than willing to emulate Orson Welles. No, scratch that. He was willing to BE Orson Welles. Aside from the performance of Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds", there hasn't been a more charismatic and commanding performance than that of McKay's who lives up to the reputation of Welles. With his thunderous voice and ability to sweet talk his way into profundity, McKay delivers simply one of the best performances of the year. It's a performance that in many ways propels all of the film's great moments. I don't want to say McKay is the complete life of the film, but it definitely is the best part. Certainly the performance trumps Linklater's coming of age story, but the film as a whole is more than pleasant. Like the films from the 40's, it doesn't need to be a profound piece of work in order to justify its existence. Instead, it's a film built on mad cap fun with only a few strings attached. Whether it was the awkward laughs or Linklater's look at the chaotic construction of a play, I felt the film's light breeze carrying me from start to finish.

"The Princess and the Frog" is a nice reminder of old time Disney magic (4/5)

It's been a while since an old fashioned, hand drawn animated film received a high profile release. In my mind, the art of hand drawn animation is seemingly all but dead. There are a few reasons for this. The most notable one being the advancement of technology, which has allowed designers and artists to render a world via a computer just as well as those found in hand drawn incarnations. Going seemingly hand in hand with the advancement of technology is the complete dominance of Pixar. Some may say that in a way Disney cannibalized its own hand drawn animation field, but then again could you blame them? Pixar is the pinnacle of not only creating lush and beautiful visuals, but storytelling as well. Yes, throughout Disney's history they've had features that boasted fantastic stories (i.e. "Beauty and the Beast", "Snow White", etc.), but they've never consistently put out quality hand drawn features at the rate that Pixar has put out computer animated films.

So, it should come as no surprise that there was a level of trepidation on my part prior to seeing the film. Was I going to get a great, back to the basics film from Disney? Or was I going to get a film trying to emulate the classics of Disney yester year? Well, more or less the film was a respectful and dazzling throw back that has earned its spot in that coveted Disney vault. As found in most of Disney's hand drawn animation films, "The Princess and the Frog" takes a classic fable and tweaks it in a fashion that keeps the fable's moral core, but at the same time still feels new. So, as the title would suggest, the film works around the tale of Prince Naveen, who is heartlessly turned into a frog and in order to break his spell, he must kiss a fair maiden. Such a fair maiden would be Tiana, a young woman who's forced to bus tables and work tireless hours as she scrimps and saves in the hope that one day she will be able to open her own restaurant. With Tiana and Prince Naveen being on opposites side of the spectrum, it's pretty clear what kind of themes and morals the film will toss at you.

Where the story is familiar and the path it leads meets most of our expectations, the film generates enough charm via the film's characters, the setting,and the music to warrant to this film a spot in Disney's coveted animation canon. As mentioned, the characters peppered throughout the film are extremely lively as they pop off the screen with great charisma. From the human characters like Tiana to a backwoods hick firefly, the film delivers a set of colorful characters that not only deliver a dose of heart, but a piece of hilarity that would make even a curmudgeon chuckle. Accompanying characters that leap of the screen, "The Princess and the Frog" also is able to capture the vibrant aura that a city like New Orleans possesses. Whether it's from the use of jazz music or the beautiful hand drawn construction of New Orleans itself, the film boasts what seems to be an admirable depiction of a city that always seems to be on the cusp of a party while still maintaining its natural beauty. Of course this is with the notion that New Orleans is more than a bunch of coeds exposing themselves for beads.

Yet, aside from the film's visual beauty, it also boasts a terrific score/collection of original songs. Written by Disney song specialist Randy Newman, the songs capture the auditory heart and soul of New Orleans as it mixes in street jazz with a swamp land sensibility. With witty lyrics and the bombastic use of horns, Randy Newman has crafted a collection of songs that not only speak volumes to the film's characters, but also lend the film a source of undeniable energy that separates it from other animated films. Obviously the film's desire to mix up the princess scenario (i.e. the white princess)is a welcoming form of differentiation, as this admirable trait should inspire a new mind set for little girls. But, despite the rather positive social image it possesses, "The Princess and the Frog" stands alone as its own entertaining entity, simply because it features fantastic characters, vibrant elements, and wonderful music. Does it surpass the efforts of Pixar? Not completely, but in many respects it's able to place itself nearly on par with Disney's story telling giant.

"Paranormal Activity" boosts the adrenaline at the expense of agitation (3.75/5)

Much to my dismay, I missed my opportunity to see "Paranormal Activity" in a theater and with an audience. After all, films like "Paranormal Activity" often carry a gravitas that is reinforced with a massive sound system, extremely dark room, and the shrieks of other film goers. As alluded to, I had to settle on watching "Paranormal Activity" in the mere comfort of my home. But I assure you, the sound was adequately amped, the lights were off, and I had a fellow filmgoer ready and willing to shriek. Despite these particular attributes, I'm willing to say one can feel some sense of anxiety watching the film even if the lights were only slightly dimmed.

Like "The Blair Witch Project", the indie horror smash that in many ways paved the path for "Paranormal Activity", the film builds its suspense on the unknown and the noises that emanate from it. With his bag of parlor tricks and well timed auditory attacks, director Oren Peli is able to create a hinge of fear without even showing the demons that run amok amongst the couple, nor delivering massive amounts of unnecessary blood. Much like the films of Hitchcock and the thrillers of the past (i.e. "The Spiral Staircase"), director Peli is satisfied by building the tension with subtle, out of place moments like the movement of a door or hearing a hint of white noise place us in the moment. Suddenly these small moments snow ball into bigger moments, as Peli goes for the jugular in the final moments. It's a film like this that is truly a dime a dozen. So many horror films these days are too concerned with their body count or hammering the audience over the head with jump scares. Peli isn't concerned with common horror fodder. Instead he's more concerned with delivering a film that feels like a slow burn; one that tortures the audience and its characters with anticipation.

Because the film is independent, it obviously allowed for Peli's vision to be achieved. Yet, because it was an independent venture, there are some shortcomings the film has to deal with. More specifically said shortcomings revolves around the acting and writing. Of course with there being very little money available, a film like "Paranormal Activity" can't really afford top of the line talent, so it has to settle on whatever it can get. Now, I would argue that the leads do a rather legitimate job creating a relationship that seems authentic and sincere. This is especially noticeable in the opening scenes where the characters of Micah and Katie partake in mundane, everyday activities. The actors are good enough to get us involved in their lives, this is even more true when applied to actress Katie Featherston who plays the victim to Peli's demon. Yet, the problems and annoyance for me comes from the character of Micah. The problem not only rises in how he's portrayed by actor Micah Sloat, but also how he's written by Peli.

First, the acting of Micah Sloat is serviceable, but the delivery of his lines when he's trying to be angry comes across as being forced. Normally this wouldn't be too much of an issue, but with the last half of the film hanging on the notion that Katie and Micah's relationship is taking a turn for the worse, his moments of aggression come out flat. Yet, I'm not ready to pin this on Micah Sloat alone. No, despite his ability to create ghoulish tension, I'm ready to pin this on Peli whose screenplay tends to paint Micah in a light that is boyish. I'm not saying this isn't a realistic characterization, but this becomes a problem when I'm supposed to be rooting for Micah and Katie.I can't sympathize with Micah when his behavior annoyed me beyond belief. This was especially true when Micah continually went against the wishes of Katie and ultimately had me wondering, why would a woman like Katie even date a man like Micah? His acts weren't anymore his character than they were the stereotype of a drunk frat boy whose kicks were scuffed at a mixer. In most horror films this kind of stereotype is saved for a secondary character. More specifically it's the type of character that is usually the sacrificial lamb to the killer/monster, where a moment is created where everyone in attendance can find some redemption in the killing of a character or in basic terms: the death of the prick.

Yet, aside from that annotation of a character, we should be feeling some sympathy for our leads. Well, the character of Micah agitated me so much, that more often than not I just wished he would meet his demise. This is inherently a problem considering that a viewer shouldn't be wishing death upon a character for the majority of a film. Had Peli been able to circumvent the typical horror 'meat-head' in Micah, I would be willing to say that he had crafted one of the best horror films since "The Exorcist". It has the setup, it has the terrific use of effects, and it has the blood stewing suspense. But, what keeps it from becoming a classic is that it had me rooting for the Devil to win at least in some shape or form, and I can't completely fear the Devil if I'm on his side.

"Food Inc." will leave a sour taste in your mouth (4/5)

I'm not really the kind of person to go out of my way to watch a documentary. This does not mean I don't see the potential value a documentary can bring to a viewer, it's just that at times I wonder the integrity of some documentaries. Case and point Micheal Moore. He has been notorious for editing his films in a way that are slightly distant from reality. Taking non-fiction and skewing it to the direction of fiction. Of course this can be said for any medium,but it could especially be a problem in films depending on how directors tend to edit a given interview or patch their film together. Now I know some of you will think that in some cases you have to be bias to prove your point. True, but a film that is lacking any form of rebuttal should always be called into question. But, as viewers, sometimes we just have to take the film at face value and trust that it's leading us down a worthy path.

Now in the case of "Food Inc." there is no rebuttal from the groups that it attacks (i.e. Tyson), but then again that's because they never responded, which sometimes is the most riveting kind of fact and in many ways gives 'Food Inc.' a pass for being so one sided. Yet, for as one sided as "Food Inc." is, it's full of information that makes me question where I've been the last few years. The film spends its scant run time on breaking down the evolution of the food industry. From the farms to the slaughter houses to Government regulation, the film deftly tackles the chain of command the food chain now flows from. Obviously with such a broad brush stroke, the film covers many individual topics that serve one another. Such topics covered are: the mistreatment of animals (like how chickens are raised prior to be killing and worked into Tyson Chicken Patties), the spreading of disease and illness through the malnourishment of animals and increase of assembly line production, the mistreatment of workers, the potential of disease spreading to consumers through food, and the handcuffing of farmers through the use of big corporations. The aforementioned topics do seem like a lot of information to handle and in many respects the topics I mentioned are merely the beginning, but the film is able to deliver its information in a clear manner. It's a manner that will not only open your eyes, but disgust you.

Yet, what the film struggles with is it's ability to cover any given topic with in depth information. Never are we fully given the complete package with the particular topic and at times makes me question whether the point is really that strong to even be in the discussion. With that being said, where I was left feeling the need for more information, I was completely drawn in by the pathos the film delivers. Whether it's the story of Moe Parr, a seed cleaner who has been attacked through the long arm of the law by seed giant Monsanto, who is taking Moe to be an individual that is trying to break their seed patent. With no money to fight the giant, Moe and his business are needlessly broken down by a corporation who wants complete control of their market and the farmers. With this singular example the film demonstrates how the "food chain" has gone corporate as its more concerned about the almighty dollar. But this is not the only example. Peppered throughout the film are countless examples of people who have been the victim of big food businesses and their hand in government dealings. Another example is that of a mother whose son died from an E.coli laden burger and is lobbying in Washington to develop a law to change the standards of food production. Although this particular segment is a little short, it's extremely powerful and further reinstates the potential danger that resides in all of our foods when laws only perpetuate the risky endeavors of big business.

When everything is taken into account, "Food Inc." is a film that is inherently bias. Certainly they could've delivered points from the other side, but in many respects the opposition made no effort to fight back. Secondly, the levels of ignorance and danger the film reveals are too big and pertinent to look away from."Food Inc." may not seem to play fair, but when it's all said and done, it's been the conglomerates in the food business who have been playing unfair. Throughout the years they have tilted the scales in their favor by treating all of the pieces in the food production process (the animals, the workers, farmers) as tools of greed. And most of all, they treat our lives as a means to an end.

"Up in the Air" is a film of its time (5/5)

Very rarely have I walked into a film and felt that it was the right film, at the right time. After all, with the production length of some films and the entire filming process, some films are released at a point where they just feel stale or like old news. Their relevance seems to be dampened. Fortunately, "Up in the Air" is a film of great relevance and its setup is far more poignant now then it would have been if it was released 6 months from now or years removed from our current economic climate. Of course this is not to say the film's impact would not be felt if it were released later, but at this moment it feels all the more real.

Based on the novel of the same name, "Up in the Air" details the life of Ryan Bingham (George Clooney),a corporate cleaner of sorts, whose profession consists of firing employees from companies around the United States. Because his job is primarily based on traveling from company to company, Ryan spends about 90% of his time on the road; using the sky as a means of transportation. Obviously anyone with such a career needs a rather compact life. Ryan doesn't date, he doesn't get bogged down by a social life, and ultimately the methods of his life are based on efficiency (i.e. packing his bag, finding quick ways through an airport, etc.) With this kind of life, it's easy to see how Ryan has not only become successful, but why he is able to travel so much. He has nothing, not even a respectable "home" to yearn for when he is on the road. The only thing he looks forward to is reaching a goal of 10 million flyer miles which would allow him all the frills an airliner has to offer. Oh and not to mention he gets his name placed on the side of a plane. Yet Ryan's goal and job stability take a hit when his company hires a hot shot grad student from Cornell named Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick)whose whole goal is to replace Ryan's face to face firings with a more cost effective method of firing people through teleconference.

This detail obviously perturbs Ryan not only because of his personal goal, but also because he feels his more intimate firings actually help people. So to prove his point, Ryan takes Natalie on a trek with him across the country as Ryan hopes to convince Natalie that what he does is important and that in many respects, is something she can't handle. Amongst this ordeal Ryan meets Alex (Vera Farmiga), a woman who shares similar qualities with Ryan as she is constantly flying for her job and doesn't partake in relationships that are more than sex based. Between his developing relationships with Natalie and Alex, for the first time in his adult life, Ryan begins to contemplate the life he currently leads and wonders if having a meaningful, lasting relationship would be worthwhile. From this comes moments of bitterness, tenderness, sadness, love, and an appreciation of human connection.

Juggling such moments is writer/director Jason Reitman who has demonstrated in his previous efforts "Thank You for Smoking" and "Juno" that he is more than capable of creating a film that can balance moments of hilarity with moments of dramatic clarity. Such a balance occurs in the various scenes where Ryan, with Natalie by his side, has to fire a group of people. Some scenes contain moments of controlled insanity and banter, but before they stray too far down the line, Reitman delicately reels them in, creating bittersweet scenes that at times can be extremely hard to swallow. The scenes become even more poignant considering how Reitman has beautifully tied in the world's economic crisis with the film's main themes. This obviously not only gives the film more relevance for the time, but is a harsh reality that we all understand too well and something we can undeniably connect with.

Certainly as an audience we can connect with the people who are getting fired, but one would think that the character doing the firing and one as reclusive as Ryan Bingham, would be public enemy number one, but that's not the case here. Instead we come to find Ryan quite lovable. This is in part because of Reitman's ability to draw complexity out of Ryan's job. Certainly Ryan is the one firing the people, but he is merely the middle man in the situation and more often than not Ryan is able to give the fired employees a sense of direction and hope when they pack up their things. With Reitman aside, the biggest reason why we come to find Ryan to be so lovable is because of the charming performance of George Clooney who delivers probably the best performance of his career. He's charismatic, funny, and endearing as he wonderfully plays off of Kendrick and Farmiga, who themselves turn in tremendous award worthy performances. Yet it's Clooney's performance that drives the film all the way home and in many ways, it's his performance that embodies the entire film. At once it's funny, melancholic, bittersweet, and completely in the moment as it shows us that even in the darkest of times, we have numerous connections and tools to guide us through any incarnation of a depression. It's with this notion that people can reach heights that money and flyer miles can't take them.