scratch that... lol

all koc activity will have to wait another week as I'll be vacationing in Florida this upcoming week, starting tomorrow. But, when I coke back, looper review will be coming. but I will let you know that I thought looper was fantastic, I'd give it an A-. Definitely one of the most fun movies I've seen this year, I'll tell you that much. In fact, though the avengers and tdkr are obviously more accomplished and ambitious, looper is big in its own way. More on that in a week. Tool then, see you in October. I write this on my smart phone so excuse some of the words there

Still alive

At least two reviews should be posted by the end of the week. I hate to have long periods without posts, but that's how it is sometimes.

Celeste and Jesse Forever, a review

Rashida Jones plays Celeste, a 30-something career woman who's about to get divorced from her life-long best friend Jesse (Andy Samberg), an artist who appears to slack off more than anything else. Their friendship still binds them together even through the twilight of their marriage, but eventually events will occur that will drive a wedge between them that may keep them apart for good.

Celeste and Jesse Forever, written by Rashida Jones and Will McCormack (who plays Skillz in the movie), is a pleasant indie romantic comedy that unfortunately meanders a bit too much in the second half and ends with barely a whimper. Even at 92-minutes, the plot ultimately feels a bit too thin. It's almost as if they introduced the main plot detail too early and the writers were scrambling trying to figure out a way to draw things out and end this film on a fitting conclusion.

The conclusion itself is indeed fitting if only because it's inevitable, still Celeste and Jesse Forever does have quite a bit to say about love and divorce, figuring things out in the next phase of your life. It's about two close friends who may still be very much in love but the circumstances that transpire have forced them to part. It's a little melancholy, but that's life. The main strength of Celeste and Jesse, and part of what keeps it going, is its down-to-earth realness.

Another part of what keeps this film going is a strong performance from Rashida Jones. Andy Samberg is no slouch either and plays a very charming and likable character, but this is a Rashida Jones movie. Finally she's able to showcase her ability as both a comedic and dramatic performer. One thing I will say is that I feel like I've seen her play this type of character a bit too much. Whether it's Karen from the Office, or her character in Parks and Recreation, etc... She's definitely cultivated an on-screen persona for herself and she's enjoyable and charismatic enough to carry her movie. I just hope she eventually starts to try different things.

This is a well-made movie that just has a few too many pacing problems. It does get a bit too frustrating to watch Jesse manage to ease his way through relationships with women whereas Celeste never seems to get to have too much fun on screen. Another unfortunate aspect of the movie is the fact that the chemistry between Andy Samberg and Rashida Jones is actually off-the-charts. They are wonderful together. But, they wind up spending so much time apart on screen which kinda brings down the energy of the movie. Sure, the movie has a decent amount of laughs throughout, but they mostly come from when Celeste and Jesse are on screen together. I think it might have been better to see them together a little longer, as it is, we only really get a hint of what they're like when they're together.

Celeste and Jesse Forever is a cute little romantic comedy that's also realistic. It's also got a great premise and the approach to otherwise standard material feels fresh and original. However, once the movie enters its second act, the movie struggles a bit too much to get back on its feet again. By the time the film is over, you'll be looking at your watch wondering how it's only been 90 minutes. The pacing of Celeste and Jesse just feels off. It's not necessarily a feel-good film but it's an earnest attempt at deconstructing a failed relationship and, for that, I think it deserves a fair amount of respect.

Grade: C+

The Master has arrived, a review

Are we humans really a part of the animal kingdom? Can we get to a point where our emotions never cloud our decision-making? Can you control someone who appears not to be ruled by anyone? Someone who abides by his own rules and refuses to repress his animalistic urges? The Master, aka Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), is about to find out whether or not loner, drifter Freddie Quell can ever be saved. His wife (the always wonderful Amy Adams) has already decided that it's impossible. As for Freddie himself, perhaps he doesn't believe there's anything there to be saved.

Still, Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) strikes a close friendship with Lancaster, albeit a short-lived one. Two men: master and apprentice, constantly at odds with each other yet amused by each other. The question isn't what Lancaster sees in Freddie, that's obvious: Freddie is someone Lancaster might be able to help, to completely justify his philosophical and religious teachings (The Cause, for which he is the leader of). Lancaster thinks he can tame Freddie's animalistic outbursts, that he can turn him into a perfect man. He tries this by a number of different methods, none of which prove to be particularly useful. Freddie confounds him and in many ways Lancaster is repelled by him, but it's those things that repel him that makes Freddie that much more attractive to him. Lancaster really does not want to give up on him, he feels a connection to him, he feels they've met before either in a past life or the present one.

But what does Freddie see in Lancaster, that's what I ask myself. Does he merely see him as a friend? Someone who can supply him with work? With Freddie, the relationship may be much simpler. Here is a directionless drifter, a former sailor and WWII veteran, unable to hold a job for any period of time. Freddie happens upon The Cause when he wanders onto their boat. Immediately, Lancaster thinks he can help Freddie. Freddie appears to merely go along for the ride. He participates in Lancaster's question-and-answer sessions for the fun of it. Perhaps he's flattered by the attention Lancaster provides him. Despite the fact that Freddie often questions Lancaster's philosophies and methods, he vehemently defends the man at every turn, unwilling to hear any dissenters.

The Master, Paul Thomas Anderson's sixth film, is Anderson at his most dream-like and also at his most riskiest. I can't imagine another American filmmaker more willing to take the types of chances that PT takes with this film. Whether it's shooting in 65mm, or the subject matter, or the inevitable backlash that may come from it... PT goes for it. In many ways, this isn't really about Scientology at all. It really only is on basic terms. The film really boils down to its characters and ultimately the relationship between Lancaster and Freddie. Then again, the film does raise some interesting questions, not specific to Scientology either. There are those who are lost that claim to be saved by religion, but what about those who simply can never be saved? Or, better yet, what do they need to be saved from? Someone like Freddie, is he wrong for the way he acts? Can he change? My answer is yes. Freddie Quell can absolutely be changed. He's a static character only in this movie, but he can be changed. The only problem is that Lancaster Dodd can't help him. Dodd's strategies and methods could never work on Freddie. They're just not practical on someone like him. What Freddie responded to, when it came to Lancaster, was love.

Love is really what The Master is about. Freddie isn't searching for a master to rule over him, he wants to be loved. Whether it's through affection, through sex, Freddie's wild behavior really appears to boil down to him being deprived from sex. Here Lancaster Dodd is trying all these complex ways to try to heal to him, but Freddie's mind doesn't need to be healed. It's his soul, his heart. Freddie wants to love and be loved, that's what he longs for. The reason why Lancaster and Freddie could never continue their friendship is because Lancaster ultimately cannot accept Freddie for who he is no matter how much he interests him. For Freddie goes against everything Lancaster's been striving for... perfection. But alas, human beings can never be perfect. We aren't wired to be perfect, despite Lancaster's insistence on the opposite. Therefore, someone like Freddie who wears his flaws on his sleeves is simply too human for Lancaster.

For Joaquin Phoenix, this is a performance of a lifetime. Not having been in a feature film since 2008, he comes roaring back in The Master. He's completely sucked into this role, embodying Freddie Quell in every fathomable way. Phillip Seymour Hoffman also does a superb job as Lancaster Dodd, giving him humanity and charm, making it really hard for you to dislike the man even if you disagree with his philosophies. Lastly, Amy Adams nearly steals the show with her quiet intensity and there's a scene between her and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in particular that you will never forget.

Like There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson has done it again for me. This film has consumed my entire brain and it might be doing so in deeper ways than with There Will Be Blood. The Master doesn't have any answers. It defiantly remains devoid of answers. Because of that, it leaves me with so much to think about, to ruminate over, that this will be a film I'll need to go back to numerous times. I will happily do so also because The Master is so rich in so many areas. The acting, the cinematography, the shot composition... PT Anderson is in full force here. He has topped himself yet again. We often expect truly great films to end with an exclamation mark, but it's funny, they almost never do. The Master is relentlessly compelling and original. There won't be another film this year that will even come close to its audacity. I believe in The Master.

Grade: A+

Thoughts about the new Lincoln trailer.

It has finally arrived. The trailer for the new Lincoln film was almost an event upon itself. Was it worth it? Eh...

On the bright side, Day-Lewis looks fantastic. He looks authentic. Furthermore the costume design and look of the supporting characters in the film look authentic as well. The trailer does a good job of not giving too much away but just giving you a taste. Unfortunately, the music is really, really cheesy and the combination of that and the approach of the trailer almost looks like it's tailor-made for Academy Awards.

I don't like to throw around the term "Oscar bait" because I do think most filmmakers simply want to make great films. With Spielberg, there's basically two sides to him when it comes to the serious dramas that he makes. There's one side that is clear, calculated audience manipulation. A director's job is to manipulate the audience, but a great director does it in a way the audience can't detect. Once the audience starts to feel you're pulling one over them, you lose them forever. Spielberg's lesser dramas have a habit of going that route, this includes War Horse with its John Williams score that's perhaps the most overbearing soundtrack in a film that I've heard in a long time.

Lincoln looks like it could go either way, but it was written by Tony Kushner who also wrote Munich which showcased Spielberg's other side. The other side of Spielberg is a guy who isn't as afraid to put it out there. His films may still have a typical Spielberg touch but the best Spielberg films (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Munich, even Minority Report) have a relentlessness about them that make them work. They take many more chances and risks and you can tell Spielberg is really hitting on something different. Munich goes into some really dark places as does Schindler's List of course. I feel like Munich is in some ways Spielberg's most mature film as it doesn't feel the need to tie things up in a typical feel-good fashion that Spielberg has a habit of doing. Spielberg wants his characters to win, you can ultimately sense that he has a strong faith in humanity which is why he'd choose a story like Schindler's List despite the Holocaust setting.

I'm hoping Lincoln goes for a more envelope-pushing route. It's got the great cast, it looks beautiful, and it has a great screenwriter involved. I hope John Williams is able to keep from making the score sound too sugary and sweet and I also hope we really get to understand Lincoln as a human being.

Aw, come on: Killing Them Softly delayed - yet again

Deadline reports that Andrew Dominik's upcoming film "Killing Them Softly" is being delayed - again - from mid-October to November 30th. If you may remember, its original release date was Sept. 21st and now it's been pushed back a full two months, presumably, for maximum Oscar buzz (really?)

To me, Killing Them Softly looks more like a potentially superb genre film, but The Weinstein Company apparently want ALL of their films to have an endless amount of Oscar buzz. They want to go into Oscar season with potentially four films that could be nominated for Best Picture: The Master, Silver Linings Playbook, Killing Them Softly, and maybe even Django Unchained. Does it really make a difference if Killing Them Softly is released in October than if it's released in November?

On the other hand, I was wondering why there were essentially zero releases for the weekend of November 30th. But, I was hoping maybe one of the many Christmastime releases could wind up getting pushed forward to that weekend. I disagree with the Weinstein's move. Killing Them Softly is apparently a difficult film to swallow for some and so if you keep delaying the film's release, you're not giving it enough time to really resonate with critics when it comes time to hand out awards. Plus, you gotta bunch of films coming out mere weeks after November 30th that could drown out Killing's chances. I would think Killing Them Softly would need to be screened at New York Film Festival or something, in order to justify this push back. As it is, I don't really understand this move. Then again, I don't understand why there needs to be 20 films all waiting to be released around Christmas. That makes no sense either.

Terrence Malick's problem

Terrence Malick's first five films all achieved some sort of cult status over the years, The New World perhaps less so. Most of all, Malick has achieved near-legend status partly due to his reclusiveness and length of time between the release of his movies. Badlands came out in 1973, Days of Heaven in '78. Then there was a 20 year break before The Thin Red Line (1998) and the aforementioned The New World (2005).

Now he's looking to pump out a movie once per year. Since last year's The Tree of Life, he's already had his follow-up To the Wonder screened in Venice and Toronto. He's almost finished shooting Knight of Cups and then he's shooting another film right after. He can get any actor that he wants because they all know that being in a Malick film will pretty much make you forever remembered by people who care about film. Badlands and Days of Heaven grew in stature during the years Malick was absent from film and their stature continues to grow today.

Maybe there was something to that. Maybe making one film every decade, or half-decade, was easier for people to swallow. The thing is that, before, Malick's reclusiveness and film style seemed almost universally admired. The films may have been divisive upon original release, but it seemed more and more people grew to appreciate them over time. After all, they require multiple viewings.

His films have gotten more experimental, since the beginning, he's been insistent in using voice-overs over beautiful imagery to tell his story. The Tree of Life was one thing, but now word coming from To the Wonder is that it's even more experimental than Tree of Life. There were boos out of Cannes after Tree of Life screened in 2011, but it managed to win the Palme D'or. In Venice, the boos for To the Wonder were apparently louder, more vociferous. While there seems to still be positive reviews from critics who have seen these movies. His naysayers do seem to be getting louder and more determined in their dismissal of Terrence Malick's style and personality.

My feeling is that if Malick wants to keep making films as frequently as he does, he's gonna either have to change it up a little bit or at least come out of hiding and talk about his work a little bit. Leaving it up to interpretation works when you're not making film after film year after year. But with his output nowadays, if he keeps making these visual tone poems with narration, I have a feeling his films will continue to get marginalized. I feel like his style and personality was better suited for the long wait between the films. But I don't think you can be prolific and insist on the same style whilst staying in hiding the whole time. I read one reviewer who wrote "I'll never see another Terrence Malick film again unless my job [as a critic] forces me to."

It's sad because nobody makes films like Malick does. He has his own style. Oftentimes, people who complain about Terrence Malick will bemoan the fact that there's no originality in cinema. Terrence Malick is an original and his films do deserve to be taken seriously. But I must say that, at this point, he's kinda asking for it.

You heard about Sean Penn how he thought the script for The Tree of Life was wonderful and that there was much more to his story. Even though I admire Malick's style, I don't think it's necessary to insist upon making his films in the same exact style time after time. Trying to find the film in the editing room, taking out as much dialogue as possible, packing the film with enigmatic voice-over narration. Yeah, I could see that becoming more and more difficult for audiences to process. I think the main problem is that Malick's films increasingly become more serious. I will concede to the fact that aside from his films being visual delights and I personally thought The Tree of Life was easily the best film of 2011... I will admit that it takes work to watch Malick's films. It gets easier with subsequent viewings, but nobody seems to have much fun in a Terrence Malick film. The light moments are a bit too far apart from each other. His films seem to be getting more out there and in a way that's great, but in another way, they feel less grounded and down-to-earth.

It feels stupid to say these things because Malick should be able to do whatever he wants. If I have problems dealing with his style, that's one thing, but why should I tell him how he should make his films? Why should I want him to make his films more conventional?

There are quite a few similarities between Malick and Stanley Kubrick. Both valued the image over conventional storytelling, both were criticized for not placing more emphasis on their characters. But, I will say that I prefer Kubrick because despite his audacious approach to filmmaking, I actually find the stories in his films compelling they're just told in a different way. With Malick, his films are less about story and more about feeling, but the best Kubrick films are able to tell a story and make you feel something all at once while still placing emphasis on the story. Plus, Kubrick was able to take a genre and move it a hundred steps forward, changing everything we previously knew about said genre. Malick's films all kinda fall into the same tone poem genre.

So yeah, I feel it's worth saying that if you're gonna make four films in 5-6 years, that variety starts to become important. There's gotta be more to Malick than what he's shown us in five films. Something lighter, something more fun, something rich in character and story. We always hear how great his scripts are, why can't he trust himself as a storyteller? Why must he leave it all up to the editing room?

Because as serious as Kubrick's films could be, there was a great amount of humor, albeit dark, in Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, and most obviously, Dr. Strangelove. Kubrick showed more of his personality in his films. It'd be great if we can see more out of Malick with the next few films that he makes.

I only made this as a reaction to some of the negative reactions I saw of To the Wonder. There were plenty of positive notices too. Perhaps the film is great and it's different enough than his previous work. Maybe the Malick dissenters just really have it out for the man. I have no problem with that, I just fear that if he insists upon this style of filmmaking for Knight of Cups and the as-of-yet untitled film previously called "Lawless," I fear that those dissenters will start to feel that their opinions are justified. And I love Terrence Malick's films, I think they're each cinematic events. At the same time, I could see myself feeling restless if he never intends on expanding on his style.


Image above courtesy of The Guardian.