The Soloist

When I saw the previews for The Soloist, I waited eagerly for the release. Then, just when the film hit the theaters, Jamie Foxx had to spout off at the mouth and say some pretty stupid stuff about Miley Cyrus. His comments about a sixteen-year-old making a sex tape and doing heroin and crack jaded me enough to wait for this film on DVD. Thanks Jamie...you saved me some money. The film was not worth full price at the theater.

The Soloist appeals to me because it is a true story that sheds light on mental illness, homelessness (and subtly, the connection between the two). The story begins with a chance encounter between a Los Angeles Times Reporter, Steve Lopez (Robert Downey, Jr.) and a homeless musician, Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx). Lopez finds Ayers playing a violin with two strings at the base of a statue of Beethoven. In a disjointed conversation, Ayers runs through a litany of music and location related ramblings before Lopez asks about three names written on a nearby tree. Ayers advises Lopez that those were his friends at Julliard. Seeing the potential for a story, Lopez begins running down Ayers' history. What began as a chance encounter leads to an examination of responsibility and friendship.



The story itself could be a powerful, poignant, moving story about an unlikely relationship that grows into true friendship. There were some decent lines, especially Lopez, near the end of the film, reflecting on what he had taken away from his friendship. The film uses flashbacks to pick up some of Ayers' history, which works to an extent. However, the transition between scenes if often jerky with awkward timing. Maybe it was an attempt to convey mental illness to the audience. If that was the source, it didn't work for me. I found many of the scenes to be ill-conceived. There were some opportunities to force emotion from the audience that seemed to be squandered away. I wanted to be moved but found that the material was too sterile. With subject matter as deep and intense as this I expected much more. I place much of the blame for that at the feet of Director Joe Wright, who has an unimpressive resume.

The weak directing was offset by stellar performances. Jamie Foxx was exceptional as Ayers. His willingness to give himself over to the part was evident. The rambling disjointed thought processes that manifest themselves as a mumbling jumble of words were not unlike encounters I have had with mentally ill people in the past. Foxx convinced me. He was definitely the bright spot in this film. Robert Downey Jr. was also brilliant, with a role that was not as much of a stretch. However, His delivery helped sell the story. The two had good chemistry and were believable. Catherine Keener had a smaller role as Mary Weston, Lopez' significant other. She had a decent drunk scene, but did not have a very significant role in the film. The actors provided this film with the heart that was lacking in the script and directing.

Read More About The Soloist

A Serious Man

I don’t know how many goyim attended the Coen brothers latest release, A Serious Man, but there were plenty of movie-goers laughing at stuff that this goy didn’t find funny. Maybe it’s a Jewish thing (if you have to ask, you wouldn’t understand). I gave the Coen’s last two movies (Burn After Reading and No Country For Old Men) Five Stars each. A Serious Man reminded me more of The Ladykillers, which I was less enamored by.

A Serious Man begins with a short scene that introduces us to a family curse. The credits follow, before introducing us to Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a 1960s professor whose luck seems to be a product of the introductory scene. This luck appears to apply to his jobless, homeless brother Arthur (Richard Kind) and most likely passed to his son Danny (Aaron Wolff). The family dysfunction becomes the heart of glib ruminations into every aspect of Gopnik’s life. Attempts to prevent Gopnik’s tenure at his school, a scary neighbor who ignores the property line between their houses and children who view him only as the source of filched money or adjusted television reception. But the worst of it is Larry’s wife, Judith (Sari Lennick) who has decided that she wants a “get” (a traditional Jewish divorce) so that she can marry Larry’s friend, Sy Abelman (Fred Melamed).



A Serious Man lacks a concrete plot, concentrating more on the characters and their interactions while leaving the ending open to interpretation. The concept of this film appeared to be a family curse that we witnessed being manifested on a later generation. The troubles are sometimes trivial, like the property line issue, but the Coen’s seek every opportunity to exploit the effete main character. The subdued comic elements were woven throughout the script seizing every opportunity to elicit laughter. Some of the humor seemed awkward. The audience erupted following the death of a character, puzzling me. I understood the essence of the scene, but didn’t find it amusing. I laughed several times, but much of the humor was shallow and cliché. The characters were quirky and interesting. I enjoyed many exchanges between them.

I am not familiar with Michael Stuhlbarg, but found his performance to be engaging. I liked the way he schlepped along in the film while appearing earnest in his struggles. I wanted his luck to change. I cared less for Kind’s performance, but it was more the role he played. His character irritated me, making it difficult for me to enjoy his performance. Melamed was captivating, bringing a quirky comedic presence to his character that was subtle and enjoyable. Aaron Wolff was also enjoyable as the son. His facial expressions were often more compelling than the script. The cast was not very familiar to me, but did a fine job.

Read More About A Serious Man

Junebug

I do not remember seeing advertisements for Junebug, and I am not sure I would have watched it when it was released in 2005 based on the synopsis of this film. However, putting my faith in the sage advice of Netflex, I decided to add this film to my queue. I have been happy finding treasures on NetFlix that I had previously overlooked. Junebug presents an interesting story that, in many ways, reminded me of my own life. The characters were scary-close to my own experiences. I guess that is why Junebug connected with me…it felt close to home.

Junebug introduces us to Madeleine (Embeth Davidtz), a Chicago art dealer and her husband George Johnsten (Alessandro Nivola). We see a rapidly brief romance before catching up with the couple six months later as newly-weds. George is in North Carolina checking out a local artist (David Wark, played by Frank Hoyt Taylor) from Pinnacle, NC, who appears to have some serious psychological issues. But George likes the art enough to advise Madeleine to come down and check out the art for herself. Madeleine likes Warks “Antietam,” relating that she recognizes the corn fields and likes the dog heads and scrotums. The art has a very vulgar quality, but obviously qualities that Madeleine thinks will sell.



Madeleine and George have only been together for six months. Madeleine has not yet met George’s family. Pinnacle is merely a half hour from George’s hometown, so the two decide the time has arrived to meet the family. The family dynamics mirror the dynamics of most normal, slightly dysfunctional (and likely average) families in America. Some qualities were exaggerated for effect, but the emotional aspects of individual relationships between family members make the film interesting and relevant. Madeleine is showered with adulation from George’s sister-in-law, Ashley (Amy Adams). Ashley has a bubbly ubiquitous energy that seems both childish and adorable. Ashley is excited by Madeleine’s arrival. The same cannot be said for George’s mother Peg (Celia Weston) who Madeleine mistakenly calls “Pat” during their first encounter. Peg may be a protective mother who won’t find any woman satisfactory for her son…or she may just be a strong personality who rules her roost. Speaking of roosts, Scott Wilson plays Peg’s hen-pecked husband Eugene. Eugene is a quiet, quirky fellow who appears to avoid conflict. George’s brother Johnny is a brooding and explosive under-achiever who seems troubled at George’s arrival. He is also reluctant to accept Ashley’s pregnancy.

Junebug follows the family through the mundane motions of breakfast, painting fingernails, a baby shower, church dinner and more. While plotting a seemingly routine course for the visit, we observe Madeleine and George both learning things about each other that they didn’t know. In a sense, it is an opportunity for them to grow as husband and wife. We also begin to learn details about the other characters, some of which play into the climax of the film. Subtle cues are provided that foreshadow the ending without giving away too much. Even with a suspicion of where the plot was heading, it was enjoyable to pick up the nuance without having the message spelled out in block letters like much of the mindless drivel out there. The dialogue (especially Ashley’s) is exceptional. The family interaction, as well as thematic material, is expertly woven into the dialogue for viewers to consume. Although sluggish at times, the story was well thought out with an obvious avoidance of cliché.

There were many hidden undercurrents worked into this script. I am not sure I caught them all, and may have to make this one of those rare films that I watch a second time. There were some themes that seemed more obvious than others, and I haven’t fully analyzed how all of it applies to the story. But one element that I found intriguing was the juxtaposition of the relationship between the two brothers and their spouses. They both appear to be with the right spouse. Yet George and Ashley seem to connect with each other in a spiritual way, while Johnny and Madeleine appear to experience some sexual energy. The exchanges between the four create some depth.

Read More About Junebug

I Am David

NetFlix let me down this time. The database suggested that I Am David would register better than four stars for me. I liked the concept and felt like there were definitely some good concepts explored. However, the film had the quality (especially dialogue) of an “Afternoon Special.” The poorly written dialogue was tepidly adapted by Paul Feig from a novel written by Anne Holm. Reading the synopsis of the book, it appears that Feig added an interesting twist to the plot, but changed some elements of the story. This is one where the book might be far superior to the cinematic version.

David (Ben Tibber) is a fictitious boy who, at twelve years of age, has very few memories of anything other than his life in a post-WWII concentration camp. Ben want to escape the camp and enlists the aid of Johannes (James Caviezel). Johannes has become fond of the boy, offering him advice to help him survive. After a brief exchange in the camp, we are guided through twenty minutes of action, overlapped by instructions that have been given to David prior to his escape. The instructions are step-by-step directions to assist David in finding his way to Denmark. Several borders and unexpected challenges await the young escapee on his journey. David meets a variety of people who each share something with David, helping him to understand life outside the confines of a concentration camp.



I Am David is a tender poignant tale that has two very good plot twists to enhance the value of the story. The excellent concept is compromised by dialogue which seems like it is drawn directly from a first –grade reader. The dialogue borders on insulting in simplicity. The film has a run-time of ninety minutes, the first twenty being narrated. That leaves precious little time to develop the characters that David meets on his journey. It seems as if David bounces from one experience to the next with little opportunity to fully engage the other characters. This made the dialogue even more tedious and superficial. The characters really did not matter to me. There was an excellent plot twist at the end that could have paid out in spades if it had been played right. As it was, I merely yawned at the ending. It was squandered on characters that just did not matter to me.

Read More About I Am David

Angels & Demons

I thought The Da Vinci Code was moderately palatable. Nothing spectacular. Which is why I was surprised to see a sequel. The film made lots of money but just was not that good. Why someone chose to make a sequel is beyond my understanding. Angels & Demons was a waste of time. Of course, I watched it during an international flight...so I had nothing better to do.

Angels & Demonsis bad on many levels. Tom Hanks returns as Robert Langdon, who has been summoned to the Vatican to help solve the kidnapping of several Cardinals following the untimely death of the Pope. In a contrived and completely unbelievable turn of events, Langdon finds himself at the middle of a conspiracy within the Church. Langdon has a somewhat apostate view of church affairs so an intended irony exists in his effort to save the Institution while attempting to save the lives of thousands of residents and visitors to the Holy See (and surrounding area). The plot manages to squeeze and stretch reality with an impossible time line that often seems laughable. While solving Da Vinci Code-like riddles, Langdon manages to unravel the location where each Cardinal will be assassinated while trying to get ahead of the killer and solve the broader mystery. Langdon does not realize that he is a pawn who has been brought in to further the conspiracy.



This is where the plot really loses me. The plot relies heavily on Langdons ability to solve the mystery within an incredibly tight time line. There is also a scene where Langdon could easily have lost his life, in which case the broader plot could not have evolved properly and the entire elaborate set-up would have been for naught. There were other inconsistencies in the plot that just seemed to incredible...like managing to get a helicopter on stand-by in the courtyard of the Vatican within minutes. Even a carefully orchestrated plot would fail to execute a time line so quickly and precisely...depending on such minute details as another individuals ability to string together riddles and solve them...just one minute one way or the other changes the outcome. Not likely.

The characters in Angels & Demons are woefully bad. The characters are flat and predictable. The stereotypes would probably create outrage in communities other than the Christian (Catholic) Church. I was shocked at how blatantly religious considerations were disregarded with complete impunity. I am not Catholic and was not offended by the film personally. But I could easily see how someone could find the material offensive. Not simply because of the conspiracy and behind the scenes politics demonstrated in the film, but by the treatment of several of the characters, who are one-dimensional caricatures. It seemed like some liberty may have also been taken with historical facts.

Read More About Angels And Demons

Intacto

While searching for an interesting title to watch, I came across Intacto. The premise immediately captured my attention. Unfortunately, the concept was not executed as well as it could have been. Intacto exercises a premise where all people possess a certain amount of luck…most people very little. Those people are sort of pawns, whose photographs can be exploited to increase the power of those who possess them. Others possess a great deal of luck and can draw more luck from those around them. Whether they steal the luck of fellow passengers on a plummeting aircraft or inadvertently consume the luck of close family members in a fleeting moment of crisis. Either way, their ability to take the luck of persons less lucky makes the idea of luck more a commodity to be bartered away or taken with a touch rather than being a possession of the fickle wind of fate.



The idea of presenting luck in this manner is unique to me. I don’t recall having seen a storyline quite like this one. The plot was hard to follow at times, with subtlety being used to convey sometimes ambiguous ideas, which made things hard to follow. The pacing was seldom sluggish, but did bog down at times. The characters were well developed and interesting. The background on several characters was developed slowly, with biographies evolving during the course of the film. The rich and diverse characters, each with a gift that might be a curse, were believable within the context of the film. An undercurrent of love was threaded throughout the film leading to a theme that questioned which was stronger, luck or love. The ending was thoughtful, avoiding the easy path and allowing some interpretation.

I am unfamiliar with the work of Director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo and did not recognize the majority of the cast. The film sets seemed prop-ish at times, but was at its best when highlighting the rich architecture and gorgeous Spanish scenery. The film keeps viewers guessing a great deal, which was part of the films appeal. However, the sketchy nature of some of the exchanges was almost too cryptic. The themes were evident, but this is a film that needs to be watched over again to catch the minutia. Fresnadillo also co-wrote the film with Andres M. Koppel. The cast consisted of Leonaro Sbaraglia, Eusebio Poncela, Monica Lopez, Antonio Dechent, Max von Sydow (a face I recognized), Guillermo Toledo, Alber Ponte, Andrea San Vincente, Marisa Lull, Luis Mesonero, Jaime Losada and Susana Lazaro. The interaction of these players was convincing, even when I felt utterly confused, picking up the action piece by piece, where I could. Although sub-titled through a good portion of the film, the acting was convincing.

Read More About Intacto

Lions For Lambs

Lions For Lambs presents an overlapping drama that follows three story lines. The film attempts to challenge the conduct of the "War on Terror" through by tracking dialogue between a reporter and rising Senator, a Professor and a promising student, and two students who previously studied under the professor, who are involved in escalating operations in Afghanistan. The intertwining stories attempt to take an anti-war stance in a rather sophomoric plot that seems more preachy than touching. This film would have been more effective using a subtle message than to stand on a soapbox the way that this film manages to do. I watched it for entertainment...if I want a sermon, I can go to church for free.

There are several problems with the plot. The most glaring issue is the ending, which was both anti-climactic as well as boring. It seemed the writers used an unimaginative ending that was intended to be thought provoking in one aspect, and cliche in another. The ending left me wondering why I wasted 88 minutes on an unintelligent, unoriginal propaganda piece. The dialogue was okay at times, and utterly boring at others. The acting was shockingly bad. The major actors were upstaged by their unknown counterparts in this film. The segments that focused on the professor (Robert Redford) and his prize student (Andrew Garfield) felt more like an after school special than anything. However, Garfield was surprisingly likable and sharp in his role. The storyline between the Senator (Tom Cruise) and reporter (Meryl Streep) was a yawner...I've seen soap operas with more meat to them. Streep delivered on the emotional aspects surrounding her own inner turmoil, but the script left her with very little else to work with. The best segments surrounded the action in Afghanistan between friends (Michael Pena and Derek Luke). Although the special effects were laughable, the interaction between these two young actors was excellent. They were the bright spot in an otherwise forgettable film.



Lions For Lambs attempts to bring home the human side of the war through the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. But Director Robert Redford and writer Matthew Michael Carnahan spent too much energy focused on the message and missed the opportunity to develop the action in Afghanistan. The two characters seemed genuine, with a back story that provided some depth to the characters, as well. The briefing room scene felt authentic and started to draw me in at the beginning of the film. But once the pair get on a helicopter, the opportunity seemed squandered. The action sequences were incredibly fake as was one characters decision to jump out of a helicopter in the middle of the mountains. No way. No how. The fact that he lands feet from his friend (and they both live) is even harder to swallow. The scenery for the rest of the action in Afghanistan seems like a bad Hollywood set. The low lighting was incapable of adding any realism to the scene. The ending of that segment was even harder to accept. Things just don't happen that way. The fact that Redford included induction notices for the two...when the draft hasn't been around for decades was another not-so-subtle attempt to engage in hyperbole.

The storyline involving Redford was preachy and a bit condescending. Although Redford's character (Professor Malley) claims to encourage free thinking and stimulate discussion (which was a major theme in this film...one that it failed to observe)...his comments about the two soldiers in Afghanistan are a bit disturbing. Malley passes judgment on the two, summarizing their decision as a mistake...a wrong path chosen...and he accepts some of the "blame" for their decision. What is wrong with wanting to serve your country or make a decision to join the military. Many people would not consider that decision a "mistake," they would consider it patriotic or heroic. The judgmental language with no attempt at balance undermined the entire train of thought. The quality of the writing and video in this segment felt like an after school special. I disliked almost everything about that entire section of the movie.

Read More About Lions For Lambs