"Paranormal Activity 2" is a step up from the original (4/5)

If you’ve been reading my blog for awhile, it's likely you saw my slight displeasure for Paranormal Activity. I honestly enjoyed it, but I felt that it missed an opportunity in becoming a classic when it possessed a character I actually wanted to die. Obviously this can be a persistent problem if a film is trying to generate some ounce of fear based on the survival of its characters. Thankfully, at least for my own sake, Paranormal Activity 2 actually has a hoard of characters who are very likeable. The film, possibly knowing it needs to one up its predecessor simply because it’s a sequel, has a  family battling the disembodied spirits now instead of a couple in over its head. Individual actors portraying the family don’t stick out enough to warrant a huge praise, but their ability to establish a legitimate family bond gives us a reason to fear for their safety. In addition to the increase of terrified people, Paranormal Activity 2 also attempts to liven up its approach to delivering scares. The first film unapologetically used a single camera as a means to capture the terror. Despite its limited perspective, it was a nice to touch to give the film a voyeuristic feel. Director Oren Peli’s intentions were to  immerse the audience through the home movie approach, and it worked quite well. Yet, had this sequel gone the route of its predecessor, the film would’ve felt played out.

"How to Train Your Dragon" is a fun, light-hearted film (4/5)

Let's be honest, with the exception of "Shrek" and "Ants", Dreamworks has been pretty much treading water in regards to their animation division. This is not to say that what they've put out hasn't been entertaining, but very rarely have they captured the magic and essence of a Pixar film. Unfortunately for Dreamworks, they're still left in the dark with their newest creation "How to Train Your Dragon", a film that's just as cute as a Pixar film, but one that lacks depth to create a film that delivers on all levels. Now, the film itself possesses a focused  and imaginative story that rivals almost any Pixar film. "How to..." tells the tale of Hiccup, a teenage Viking who has a zest for invention and an intention to be a heralded dragon hunter in his home town (or village) of Berk. Berk is a special place of sorts, considering that it's a relatively happy place aside from the frequent attacks by dragons. Yet, the Berk faithful are a group of people that are strong and resilient...aside from Hiccup of course. If anything, Hiccup is merely a visitor at Berk. Physically he's meek, strategically he's unorthodox (at least by Berk's standards), and his leadership presence is non-existent.

Although Hiccup may not be the spitting image of his fellow brethren, he is quite resourceful in his own way. More specifically he has a rather high level of ingenuity as he creates an assortment of inventions that could aid Berk in its defense of dragons, but like most progressive thinkers, Hiccup is seemingly cast away to the outskirts while history takes precedence. Obviously, dragons need to be killed as gruesomely as possible for that is the Viking way! Of course this difference between Hiccup and his village manifests itself extrinsically as Hiccup's father, who appears to be the soldier of fortune in Berk, finds himself on the prowl, hunting for the dragon's nest. At the same time, Hiccup comes across a wounded dragon that he befriends, which ironically occurs when he is being trained to slay dragons.This ideal of barbarianism versus a (for lack of a better word) humanism, although somewhat cliche, is a well oiled cog in a story that for the most part acts as a voice for the respect and understanding of all creatures.

Eventually, as you might expect, Hiccup convinces the village of Berk in the end that you can't hate, nor kill, something you  don't fully understand. No matter how preachy the story may sound, it's executed extremely well. Featuring well established primary characters, motivations, and fun action pieces, the film does a wonderful job balancing an important message with lively dragon based hijinks. Accompanying the story is the visuals, which are truly fantastic. Whether it's the design of Berk, or the detail and imagination poured into the dragons themselves, "How to..." is a smooth ride for the eyes that is heightened when it's combined with 3-D. Granted, the 3-D itself doesn't make the film like it does for "Avatar", but it certainly makes some flying sequences far more thrilling and enticing had they not been in 3-D. So, it's quite clear that the film offers an engaging and important story mixed in with some dazzling visuals, but the question becomes: where did the film falter? Honestly, I feel the film falters when it comes to voice casting and secondary characters.

Let's begin with voice casting, an area that you may deem me as being too fickle in. Nonetheless, I feel that aside from Gerard Butler and Craig Ferguson, whose voices and personalities add a distinct flavor to their respective characters, the voice cast lacks any power. From the lead Jay Baruchel to Jonah Hill, a few of the voice actors just seem to be going with the flow.  None really go the extra mile and make their characters come off as being authentic, where as Butler and Ferguson add a bit of zest and zeal. Aside from Baruchel's voice, his character was well written, as were most of the primary players, but it was side characters and jokes along the way that came off flat. Some of them, most of which consist of Hiccup's dragon training classmates, are mildly amusing, but often come off as boring riffs of characters we've already seen before. Unfortunately some of this lack of originality also found its way into a few jokes, but the film is loaded with enough great jokes to make up for the ones that get away from the screenplay. With that being said, "How to Train Your Dragon" is a step in the right direction for Dreamworks. They have always exceeded in the visuals department, but now they've finally showed they can handle the art of storytelling, at least when it comes to their post "Shrek" filmography. Surely, "How to Train Your Dragon" isn't their most polished effort, but it's definitely one of their most enjoyable and focused films.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"Goodbye Solo" is a quiet gem (4/5)

Written and directed by Ramin Bahrani, "Goodbye Solo" details the relationship that develops between a taxi driver named Solo and a random passenger named William. The relationship begins with William asking Solo to be his driver in a few weeks. Solo is apprehensive when he finds out that William only wants to be dropped off and not picked up at a unique location.

Through this interaction, Solo and William strike up what is almost an odd couple relationship. William is an old, white southern gentleman while Solo is a Senegalese 30 year old male with a budding family. William is played with reserved anguish by Red West, while Solo is played with great charm by Souleymane Sy Savane. Both are opposites of one another, but both eventually need each other as they fill a void in each other's lives.

William represents the discipline that Solo desperately needs, while Solo represents the love for life that William has come to loss. With a lesser writer and director, this relationship would sink into sentimentality, and a we would all learn a valuable lesson in the vain of "Full House." But, Bahrani is above that as he creates a relationship between two men that is sincere and full of understanding. Both know where the other wants to go and both understand what it takes to get there, its just a matter of whether or not they want to reach one another. And where a more sentimental film boasts big emotional scenes and acts of endearment, Bahrani and his actors are more in tune with the smaller, quiet moments that may not hit you at the time, but come on strong once the credits roll.

And thats the beauty of "Goodbye Solo", its built on those quiet, small moments we have with people. Sure, its much more memorable to go for broke on one scene and deliver an Oscar worthy crying scene, but we have to remember our lives are strung together by small little threads. If anything "Goodbye Solo" is representative of real life, where the small moments should be appreciated just as much as those big, life altering turns.