The Social Network (2010)

I feel very comfortable calling THE SOCIAL NETWORK a thoroughly watchable, incredibly written, strongly acted and excitingly paced film, but I find myself falling short of calling it brilliant, incredibly directed, or “the best film of the year.” I’m wondering if I’d feel differently had I seen the film at the height of its just-released hype. Instead, I waited to see it until after I had already seen films like Danny Boyle’s “127 Hours.” And, having done so, I don’t see the strength in David Fincher’s direction that I see in Boyle’s film (just to name one).

THE SOCIAL NETWORK is being courted as this year’s Best Picture winner. I can understand why in the sense that it has that zeitgeist-y quality in terms of its topic. But I don’t know if it really captures our time the way everyone thinks it does. Yes, it deals with what has perhaps become the most significant communications tool of the last half-century or more. And Fincher captures the present day backstabbing and paranoia of the business world with bite and clarity. But do you know what the film never really does at all? It never really dives into the impact that Facebook has had on culture, on how we communicate. Its version of psychology is stopped short at creator Mark Zuckerberg’s motivations for starting the website in the first place.

To be sure, it’s an interesting story of a man dancing with genius as motivated by spite, and many have drawn parallels between this film and “Citizen Kane.” I can see where the comparison comes from, but I disagree with it. Zuckerberg’s no-longer-girlfriend is no Rosebud. And Fincher, as good of a director as he is, is no Orson Welles. There are no jaw dropping visual moments here, while Kane is littered with them. This leaves the connections, if in fact there are any, on the level of story parallels.

I struggled for a while after seeing THE SOCIAL NETWORK to figure out what specifically Fincher brought to the table as a director with a typically authorial tone, because to me, the film was much more an example of the work of Aaron Sorkin, its screenwriter, whose trademark razor-sharp dialogue is the highlight of this production. Upon further reflection, I can certainly recall that Fincher darkness, the shadowy, noir-like paranoia that make most of his great films so good. And yet despite all of Fincher’s talents as a director, I found myself struggling to believe that only he could deliver this film in such a manner while, in contrast, I can’t imagine anyone else having helmed “Seven,” “Fight Club” or “Zodiac.” There are some stylistic similarities, but not enough. I think filmgoers are being blinded by the fact that a great director has intersected with the cultural story of the moment. But I was much more entertained by the dialogue than by any directorial decision, camera set-up or editing choice.

If anything makes me happy about THE SOCIAL NETWORK, it’s that audiences now know Jesse Eisenberg, an actor I have been raving about for damn near a decade. Eisenberg hit my radar all the way back in 2002 in his debut film role as the co-star of the brilliant and under-appreciated “Roger Dodger,” which would be on my list of favorite films of the past decade. His follow-up roles in films like “The Squid and the Whale,” “Adventureland” and “Zombieland” were some of the best things about those films, and it seems like with his role in THE SOCIAL NETWORK, the rest of America is finally catching up to him. Eisenberg is not, thank you very much, Michael Cera’s twin brother. What he is, though, is the perfect vehicle for Sorkin’s dialogue, as the film’s opening scene demonstrates. It’s a credit to Eisenberg alone, I think, that you never quite hate Zuckerberg even though logic tells you what an asshole he is.

Nothing about THE SOCIAL NETWORK is weak. The supporting cast—particularly the work of Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake—is memorable and realistic. The production values are stellar. And if the film racks up the accolades during the award season ahead, those kudos won’t be wholly unjustified.

But I’m going to stand out on a limb, perhaps alone, and look back on THE SOCIAL NETWORK as solid film entertainment as opposed to the second coming. I enjoyed it very much, but I thought it could have been so much more. Four-star films are movies that couldn’t be better. Three-star movies are quality entertainment and memorable pieces of film craft. THE SOCIAL NETWORK is the latter.

3.0 out of 4

Winter's Bone (2010)

Wherever Ree Dolly goes, the message is the same: stop digging your nose around or you’re going to get hurt. But she persists. She has to. Though she has little to lose, she could lose much of what’s left if she doesn’t find her father.

So goes WINTER’S BONE, an Ozark noir centered on a teenager who embarks on a search for her deadbeat father when the town sheriff informs her that his failure to appear at an upcoming court date will result in the family losing its house. The dad, Jessup, it turns out, is wanted for manufacturing and dealing meth. He goes missing, leaving a wife and three kids in a ramshackle house he leveraged as bond before taking off. Mom is a pill-popper and likely in denial; she is virtually useless to the family. And so it falls to Ree, the oldest, to be the family caregiver and provider.

Ree is resilient and, though proud, knows when to accept the kindness of a neighbor who would feed her family’s starving horse or allow her to use a machine to chop firewood. But she’s not about to allow the family to be split up, so she ventures out to find her father in the hopes that she can save the house. On her journey through the low-income Ozark countryside, she is told that her father is dead more than once. Those who might know details refuse to say. Chief among them is her uncle, Teardrop, who is unwilling to help. Ree teaches her younger siblings to hunt and clean squirrels and tries to get through to her mother, all the while spending her free moments hoping to confirm whether or not her father is dead or alive. It’s not long before the bondsmen come, giving her a week to prove her father’s death or lose the house.

Her efforts to intensify her search are at her own peril, and what happens to Ree next is best left for viewers to discover for themselves, so I won’t spoil that by divulging too many plot points here. “There’s a bunch of stuff that you’re going to have to get over being scared of,” Ree says at one point to her little brother, and indeed she is living her words.

Jennifer Lawrence plays Ree in a breakthrough performance. Most of her career has been television work, but this film will likely change that. Her name already appears on most shortlists for a Best Actress nomination, and it’s hard not to agree with those predictions. Hers is a fierce but controlled performance, the kind where an audience can’t separate an actor from a character.

Director Debra Granik lays the impoverished Missouri countryside bare without reducing all of its inhabitants to pity-worthy inbreeds and idiots. She understands that to the poor, the house is everything, even when that house is collapsing. The residents might have low incomes and low levels of educational experience, but they have community. They play music. A few offer assistance, even when they themselves have little. Her camera scans the junkyard details of this rural life, where the little kids play on rusted trampolines or jump across large bales of hay to occupy their time and the insides of houses are low-lit warehouses of hoarded crap.

But ultimately, Granik’s tale is one of stepping up to the plate. You never know when you’ll be forced to take control of a situation that nothing prepared you for, and we admire Ree more than we pity her, which is saying something because there is plenty about her life to feel sorry for. Ree’s uncle Teardrop must also rise to unexpected challenges as he eventually decides to take ownership of the family and assist his niece in uncovering the truth, or at least as much truth as possible.

WINTER’S BONE plays out quietly for the most part, like a good short story with characters the audience gets a chance to know. The performances are raw and not flashy in the slightest. Audiences might be surprised, in fact, to figure out that Sheriff Baskin is played by Garret Dillahunt, a relative unknown who shot to notoriety right around the time of this film’s release as the wacky dad on the TV show “Raising Hope.” And if you look up the career of John Hawkes, you’ll find that the actor who plays Teardrop has about an extensive a resume as an actor can have short of being recognizable. But the film ultimately belongs to Lawrence, who manages to inject a story of hopeless desperation with a calming and driven presence. Her performance lacks the kind of climactic, overly-dramatic screaming and wailing scene that Hollywood storytellers would have required of an actress, which is a credit to the writer as much as the star.

Little films like this tend to fall through the cracks without award recognition, and WINTER’S BONE will hopefully benefit from its Sundance Grand Jury Prize and, with any luck, some Oscar recognition. But even if it doesn’t, it’s not to be missed.

4 out of 4

Why Did I Get Married Too? (2010)

While I enjoyed Tyler Perry's "Why Did I Get Married?" more than most of his films, the movie's sequel, WHY DID I GET MARRIED TOO?, goes completely off the rails. Who is Tyler Perry making movies for at this point? It's hard to say. But I have deduced so far that he's not directing for people who are looking for realism or subtlety in their domestic dramas.

Gathering as they did before for an annual couples retreat, four women (Janet Jackson, Jill Scott, Sharon Leal and Tasha Smith)and their henpecked husbands (so interchangeable that their names barely matter) head to a Bahamas beach house instead of the Colorado resort they last visited. On their last trip, the behind-the-bedroom-doors drama began to unravel as cabin fever set in. But this time, the drama is on before the couples board the plane to head south.

Loudmouth alcoholic Angela (Smith) is now completely unreasonable. Her husband, Marcus, finally has a steady job, and she's jealous. Not to mention that her lack of trust in Marcus is oppressive and ridiculous. So much so, in fact, that her once funny boozy one-liners now grow tired within minutes, and Perry is not capable of establishing any reasonable justification for why Marcus would stay with this women (or why the others would tolerate her presence). We are only told, over and over (in case we forget), that Marcus loves her. Not good enough. She's ridiculous.

The reverse suspicions are at work in the marriage between Dianne (Leal) and Terry (Perry), the latter of whom becomes increasingly paranoid of his wife's fidelity as the film goes on. This is probably because every couple in a Tyler Perry movie must have an affair or, at the least, credible if ultimately misleading evidence of one. What Perry avoids completely is a couple that actually loves and trusts each other.

Not that he doesn't make an attempt. Though WHY DID I GET MARRIED TOO? is the furthest thing from a "grounded" movie, one memorable scene involves guest performances by Louis Gossett, Jr. and Cicely Tyson as a vacationing couple married for over 50 years. Their exchanges demonstrate the petty nagging that comes with time, but also a sweet devotion and stability that the others lack. This moment, however, is soon eclipsed by the greatest drama of all, which occurs when Patricia (Jackson) announces that she and her husband Gavin are divorcing.

Janet's performance in the final third of the film is probably the most memorable thing about this movie, though it's hard to watch without remembering that she filmed these emotional scenes just after her brother Michael had died and was clearly tapping into some raw emotion. All ugly-faced and makeup-less, Jackson wails and growls and, at one point, takes a golf club to the couple's glass-filled living room. It's a moment of power gone awry by Perry's lack of control.

Even the film's most interesting subplot derails in this sequel, as the once beaten-down Sheila (Scott) finds a second chance at love with Troy at the end of the first film after escaping her abusive husband, Mike. Quite amazingly, in the most ridiculous way, Mike shows up at the beach house to make everyone's lives more miserable, which is almost impossible to do with these already miserable couples. It's proof that Perry didn't believe there was enough drama in his script, so he had to bring Mike back in. And while Mike does get involved in an interesting part of the sub-plot, it's not justification enough.

The original "Why Did I Get Married?" blended some genuinely funny moments with Perry's flair for cheating-spouse dramatics, but I laughed maybe twice through this sequel, and rolled my eyes so frequently that I'm wearing my glasses instead of contact lenses today. None of the couples manage to provide a good reason why they got married by the end. And now I'm stuck explaining why I watched the movie.

1.5 out of 4

The Lottery (2010)

The biggest film star of 2010 might not be Colin Firth or Natalie Portman, but Jeffrey Canada, the CEO of Harlem Children’s Zone, a successful charter school in New York City. Canada is one of the “stars” of not one but two feature documentary films shortlisted for Oscar consideration this year. The education visionary has gained national fame in recent weeks after hitting the talk show circuit to assist rock-star documentarian Davis Guggenheim promote “Waiting For Superman,” a film who’s thesis is that charter schools are the savior of American education. But he first appeared in THE LOTTERY, a documentary by Madeline Sackler sneaked into a much more limited amount of theatres this past summer.

And while the marketing of both films is noticeably different, the subject matter is identical. Perhaps this is why the Academy, in narrowing its potential doc nominees to 15, couldn’t distinguish between the two and included both, at the expense of other lauded films like “Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work.”

I have not yet seen “Waiting For Superman.” I plan to, but as a teacher myself I have been slowly preparing myself for what I expect will be an angry reaction to the film’s publicly one-sided look at education. Instead, I am beginning with THE LOTTERY, which is currently streaming on Netflix to subscribers. THE LOTTERY focuses more specifically on a moment that has been getting a lot of attention in the Guggenheim film, the moment when families hear the verdict rendered by a random lottery drawing used to determine which students will gain entry into selective charter schools in what is billed as a life-or-death scenario.

Clearly, it’s difficult for me, as an educator, to sideline my own biases as I attempt to review a film like this. Fortunately, it’s fair play, as THE LOTTERY makes little attempt to see things from both side, either. I would almost go so far as to say that the film, with just a few tweaks, could be used as a commercial for a few charter schools in the New York City area.

Still, facts are facts. And Sackler begins her film with the sobering statistic that 58% of fourth grade students who are African-American are functionally illiterate. You can argue the root of the problem or debate the solution, but you can’t argue the problem itself. She tells us that 365,000 kids in America are on waiting lists to get into charter schools, no shock when you understand that only four of New York City’s public elementary schools have more than half of their students reading at or above grade level. And you can’t disagree with Newark Mayor Cory Booker when he says that “a child’s destiny should not be determined by the pull of a draw.” You can also argue that NYC public schools are almost breeding grounds for future penitentiary inmates more than future college students, and to say that this is sickening in 21^st Century America is a gross understatement; it’s a human rights violation. Sackler certainly knows this, but she doesn’t work her hardest to explore this from both sides equally.

One scene in THE LOTTERY did break my heart and move me almost to the point of tears, but for different reasons. Not quite halfway through the film, Sackler takes us inside a community hearing where community parents are at odds over allowing a Harlem Success Academy charter school to take up residence in a public school building. Here, Sackler DOES show both sides. One parent in support of the charter schools tells her neighbors that the CEO of the charter school network, Eva Moskowitz, is “our Obama.” Her words are offset by screaming adversaries who ridiculously compare the coming of charter schools to General Schwartzkopf invading Kuwait. And standing right next to these ridiculous, hate-spewing parents are their children, often even holding their parents’ hands as they listen to them shout fighting words into a microphone. It’s another sad example of how the focus of education is being shifted away from the kids. I am devastated by the notion that these parents, whatever they believe, would parade their children around as pawns for leverage.

But Sackler is guilty of the same. Of all the potential charter school families awaiting a positive outcome in the impending lottery, she selects a family with a deaf mother and another with a West African immigrant whose wife and other son are still back in Africa. The choices feel overtly calculated and manipulative. Even a family in a two-parent, low-income home awaits the same dramatic fate as these families, and their chances are equally random and harrowing. Instead, we are clobbered into a sense of sadness and shame in a move by Sackler that backfires as it borders on propaganda.

If you’re a fan of charter schools and believe that public schools and urban areas cannot be reformed, you’ll find little to disagree with when you watch THE LOTTERY. Sackler follows one mother and son to a state penitentiary for a visit with the toddler’s father, footage that is clearly included as a cautionary tale to any parent who would have the misfortune of having to keep his or her child in the public schools.

There are things I don’t disagree with. One is Booker’s assertion that too many of us are “irrationally wed” to the way schools have always been run. I would also never pretend that these problems in education don’t exist or aren’t as severe as they’re presented here. To do so would be blind neglect. How could anyone possibly defend a school with a graduation rate of less than 30%?

I also admire the film on a technical level. It is well-shot, cleanly composed, and features an effective use of titling and subtitling throughout. I can see why it’s been identified as one of the best non-fiction films of the year.

But I’m looking forward to a documentary about the education crisis that truly represents the problem and its complexity from both sides. I’d like to hear about teacher unions that aren’t pure evil. I’d like to witness public school teachers who are talented, innovative and inspiring. I’d like to hear from teachers who aren’t just doing their work for their own personal glory (insert laugh here) but for the benefit and love of kids. THE LOTTERY thus lives up to its title in two ways. The viewer gets insight into the arbitrary selection process by which students gain entry into charter schools. And the viewer also receives background information on the subject that is as selective as the six balls in the lotto hopper that make it to the bottom rack to be called out.

All of this said, America’s broken education system is the non-fiction subject of the year, and that’s a good thing. But we’re still waiting for the film that tells us everything. THE LOTTERY does not. And I have my suspicions, from all I’ve heard, that “Waiting For Superman” doesn’t, either.

2.0 out of 4

Inception (2010)

(This is a mini-review of a movie I saw months ago.)

I'm not even going to try to type up a coherent review of Christopher Nolan's gutsy, intricate and brilliant INCEPTION when it's been over two months since I've last scene it. I'll just end up making a fool of myself. Suffice it to say that I will be watching the film again when I buy it on DVD, and I'll revisit that here with a full review then.

What I will tell you is that the film is stunning and one that you can't miss. It's the kind of head-scratcher that we need more of in the movie theatres these days. Not the wannabe head-scratchers (like this year's "Shutter Island"), but the real deal.

The technical elements of this film, for me, are every bit as showy and significant as last year's "Avatar." They might be even more impressive when you learn that some of the most shocking visual scenes, such as the one involving Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a rotating hotel hallway, were not done with CG graphics. Nolan, in fact, commanded his production crew to limit the CG work to as few moments as possible, and it's his style to not draw attention to them. This is in sharp contrast to a James Cameron, who flaunts CG work in an effort to draw attention more to the director's abilities than the story itself. INCEPTION has you neck-deep in its trippy plot; its visuals are organic by-products of this.

A few other brief observations:
1. This movie was made for multiple viewings. I've only seen it once so far.
2. I am in love with Marion Cotillard. The end.
3. I think I liked INCEPTION more than "The Dark Knight."
4. The much-talked-about ending of the film is brilliant.

Cinematic candy for the eyes, ears and mind!

4.0 out of 4

Jackass 3-D (2010)

(I actually saw this film about a month before "127 Hours" but forgot to post a review.)

There's not much to say in terms of reviewing JACKASS 3-D other than to say that yes, I did see the film, yes-I did laugh uncontrollably during it, and yes-I paid my own money to see it in the theatre. Where I did skimp a little was on the 3-D part. I decided to pay for the "regular" 2-D version. After doing so, by the way, I can tell you that what was done for the sake of 3-D probably looked very cool on screen, so those extra few bucks might have actually been worth it.

The Jackass TV show and films play into the sophomorish boy in all of us, with Johnny Knoxville and his merry band of idiots parading their lack of common sense around (not to mention their penises) in a mind-numbing display of desensitized idiocy. I am continually observant of the flippant homoeroticism of the Jackass films; this one had more frontal male nudity than a Ewan McGregor film! But none of the guys on screen see it that way. For them, looking at each others' wangs is as common as being bored by a ram or drinking a glass of someone's sweat.

That just mentioned sketch - the one with the sweat - was almost the breaking point for me. It certainly caused Steve-O to vomit in the film, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone in some audience in America watching the film didn't puke as well. I came close. And to call that the breaking point in a film that also features Steve-O covered in shit while strapped in an outhouse on bungee cords, is saying something.

What was cool about this Jackass was that some of the sketches skipped the disgusting and just went for plain ridiculous sketch comedy. For me, the best moments came with the participation of Jason "Wee Man" Acuna. My favorite scene in the film involved the dwarf-sized Wee Man stealing another midget's girl in a bar, resulting in a bar fight of midgets as "regular-sized" people look on in genuine confusion and shock. The fight escalates until midget cops and midget paramedics show up. It's comedy gold.

So don't judge me for seeing JACKASS 3-D. I went on a day when the need to laugh was more important to me than the need for cinematic quality. I got what I wanted, and I'm not ashamed!

3.0 out of 4

127 Hours (2010)

And here begins the stampede of Oscar-wannabe films for 2010! I begin my journey this holiday season with 127 HOURS, the true story of Aron Ralston, a rock climber and cave explorer who, in 2003, ventured out to his favorite spot in Utah from his Colorado home without letting anyone know where he was going and ended up, literally, stuck between a rock and a hard place. (Though I'm above a cliche like this, I include it here because "Between a Rock and a Hard Place" is actually the name of Ralston's memoir about his experience.

Director Danny Boyle re-teams with much of his "Slumdog Millionaire" production crew. Writer Simon Beaufoy, composer A.R. Rahman, and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle all set down their Oscars (along with Boyle's double-fisted wins) to make another one together. And the movie is, in many ways and for different reasons, every bit as good as that Best Picture winner.

I certainly am not the first - and won't be the last - to compare 127 HOURS to "Cast Away." No other film in recent memory has parallels as strong. Both films hand over their screen time to, essentially, one actor. And both are tales of unthinkable survival in the depths of unimaginable despair. But 127 HOURS is better than "Cast Away" because it requires even more creativity on the part of the director. It's almost an exercise in filming something unfilmable. Tom Hanks might have been stranded on a desert island, but he had the whole island to walk around, and he had his friend Wilson, the volleyball. The fact that he wouldn't open that undelivered UPS package, which jokingly could have contained one or more solutions to his problems, was his fault!

By comparison, 127 HOURS starts with a frantically juttering visual opening as prologue but then kicks in even more so creatively once star James Franco finds himself trapped in a canyon when his right arm is pinched between a canyon wall and a fallen boulder. Surprisingly, Boyle's kinetic, frantic directorial style turns out to be an unlikely perfect fit for a story that is inherently low on action, at least once the accident occurs. And what is perhaps even more incredible is the way the film builds in suspense, palpably so, when the payoff of the suspense is a moment the audience already knows about going in. That moment, of course, is the one in which Ralston decides to cut off a part of his own arm in hopes of escaping his more than five-day ordeal.

James Franco gives an award-worthy performance. He starts off as a cocky stoner-jock with charm enough to talk two female hikers into cave diving into a postcard-perfect hot spring. But his performance runs deeper. Franco creates the sense that Ralston, despite his charm with these ladies, is most comfortable when he's alone with the nature he appreciates so much. And it is not until that nature ultimately betrays him that he doesn't appreciate that solitude. (It's worth mentioning that the real Ralston continues to climb, dive and explore and most likely does not see his accident as the kind of betrayal I spoke of it as.) Once Franco is alone onscreen, he is a revelation, demonstrating stages of grief from denial to acceptance, and everything in between. Anyone who might have written this actor off as just another carefree twentysomething will be singing another tune after seeing this film.

Those who follow the Oscars can prepare for a slew of technical nominations for this film. Chief among them, I suspect, will be recognitions for the work of the sound team. For as gruesome as the images are of Ralston's self-amputation (and believe me, I turned away frequently, winced audibly and at one point shoved my knee into my mouth), it is a sound that provides the audience with its biggest, most adrenaline-filled and panicked gasp. I'm not going to say what that sound was because you can probably figure it out, but I will say that I could physically feel my heart rate DOUBLE at that moment. I might even go so far as to say that I broke out into a sweat. If nothing else, I was physically exhausted from watching a movie about a guy who wasn't moving. How is that possible?

And, of course, Boyle's name is deserving of repeat recognition as a director. I am often annoyed by the overly-hyper camera movement and trickery of some of today's ADD-influenced filmmakers, and there are a few moments in 127 HOURS that gave me a headache. But Boyle is not simply a stylist. He certainly IS a stylist, but he's also a storyteller. And he uses the camera here to get inside of Ralston's head, creating the film's real adventure. When Ralston runs low enough on water, for instance, Boyle gives us a trippy, commercial-like soft drink montage. Boyle provides the movement that the story inherently lacks, and the combination of the static plot and Boyle's energy is potent and perfect.

Don't ask how a movie about a guy stuck between rocks is exciting, because it is. Don't ask how a Canon camcorder can maintain enough battery life to keep Ralston company over five days as a portable player and video journal, because it does. And don't think you won't get through 127 HOURS without gasping for your own breath, because you won't. This is pure energy filmmaking. And you will leave the theatre thankful for your appendages and sunlight. Not to mention the fact that you will feel like you've just witnessed the story of one of the strongest human beings you've ever been exposed to.

4.0 out of 4

The Namesake (2006)

(This is a mini-review of a movie I watched months ago.)

Kal Penn is more than just Kumar from the Harold & Kumar films, and Indian director Mira Nair is more than just one of the rare club of women working in feature films. It turns out that Penn is a competent dramatic actor (his work on the TV show "House" reflects this as well), and Nair is a director with a vision.

THE NAMESAKE, based on the Jhumpa Lahiri novel, tells the story of Gogol, an American born to Indian immigrants, who is caught in the middle between the traditions of New York and those of India. He particularly throws his family for a loop when he falls in love with an American girl.

A quiet and quietly moving film, THE NAMESAKE, thanks to Nair's own heritage, is a great way for Americans to understand a little bit about the culture and beliefs of Indian families who live here. I teach in a school where the Indian population is one of our largest minorities (if not the largest), and while I've tasted a lot of the food at parties I've been to, I didn't necessarily understand the culture. THE NAMESAKE is a nice introduction to that. It's a brilliantly colorful film (one of Nair's authorial trademarks), and a film that belongs in the canon of classic immigration stories with the likes of "In America" and "Far and Away" (just to name a few recent examples).

Filled with compassion and intelligence, THE NAMESAKE is an excellent little film.

3.5 out of 4

Shutter Island (2010)

(This is a mini-review of a movie I watched months ago.)

I've got little business reviewing Martin Scorsese's latest, SHUTTER ISLAND, so many months after originally seeing it, because it is a complex film. So instead of delving into the plot summary and an intricate review, I'll mention the few things I remember most about the film.

1. THE CINEMATOGRAPHY. The thing that sticks with me the most about SHUTTER ISLAND even all of these months later is the work Scorsese did with the excellent Robert Richardson on the film's cinematography. Though this movie came out right around the time of the Academy Awards show for the past year's films, I predicted then and continue to believe that although almost a year has passed, the film will be remembered for its lush and sometimes chilling camera work and deft frame compositions. Richardson last worked with Scorsese on "The Aviator" and is working with him again on his next film, "Hugo Cabret." And of course, he is the man behind the camera with Tarantino for the Kill Bill films and last year's stunning "Inglorious Basterds."

2. THE STORY WAS JUST "MEH" FOR ME. There was a lot of hype about the twisty, secretive plot of SHUTTER ISLAND and the mysteries and turns of the Dennis Lehane novel from which the script derives. But to me, the film was much better to look at than to listen to, and I probably waited long enough to see it that I was able to pick out some of the key plot turns in advance, which lessened my enjoyment. Of the three Lehane novels that have been converted to the big screen, I think this is the weakest. Eastwood's "Mystic River" was the best, and Ben Affleck did a fantastic job with "Gone Baby Gone," which I also liked better than this.

3. IN THE SCORSESE CANON, SHUTTER ISLAND FALLS NO HIGHER THAN RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. As a film teacher, it made my heart sing the way this movie brought teenagers to Scorsese. A lot of kids raved to me about how great this movie was before I got a chance to finally see it myself. But these are kids who have not seen "Taxi Driver" or "Goodfellas." They have seen "The Departed," though, and that film is far superior, I think, to this. Scorsese's collaborations with Leonardo DiCaprio are some of modern Hollywood's most rewarding films, and their partnership, I think, will one day be seen as one of the legendary director-actor collaborations. But for me, SHUTTER ISLAND felt more like an above average Hollywood mystery thriller than the work of an auteur and his onscreen muse.

3.0 out of 4

The Last Station (2009)

(This is a mini-review of a movie I watched months ago.)

The entire time I was watching THE LAST STATION, I was thinking about how wonderful it would be to be watching the film's three stars, Christopher Plummer, Helen Mirren and James McAvoy, perform this script on a Broadway stage. It's my biggest criticism of the film, I suppose, that it didn't feel like it needed to BE a film. But don't mistake that comment as one that indicates any kind of lack of appreciation or enjoyment.

The enjoyment, then, is in the performances. While director Michael Hoffman does little but glide across a Hallmark card-perfect European countryside landscape, he deserves credit for staying out of the way of three fantastic actors who expertly tell the story of the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (Plummer), his devoted but bull-headed wife Sofya (Mirren), and one of his devoted followers (McAvoy), who is given a dream opportunity to meet with Tolstoy and work on his estate in his final years and develop his own beliefs in Tolstoy's political and social philosophies, all of which drive Sofya crazy. (On a side note, Hoffman also directed one of my favorite guilty-pleasure films of all-time, "Soapdish," which is another example of picking great actors and getting out of their way.)

The story here is one of a marriage that has scene it all and holds itself together in deference to time despite some significant foundational cracks. Sofya is irritated by the devotion of others to her husband's ideals and specifically belligerent toward Vladimir Chertkov (Paul Giamatti, as good as ever), who she feels is fashioning himself to be the one who will control Tolstoy's estate after he has passed on. One specific sticking point in the story is over the rights to his great novels.

While THE LAST STATION looks at times like a Merchant/Ivory production, there's little here to suggest that it works any better as a film than it could have worked as a play. Its limited movement and thoughtful discussions perhaps lend this story more to the stage than the screen. And yet, with performances like these, you watch in whatever format you have the opportunity to watch!

3.0 out of 4

A Single Man (2009)

(This is a "mini-review" of a film I watched months ago.)

Fashion designer Tom Ford does a marvelous job of transferring his eye for style from the runway to the movie screen with his directorial debut, A SINGLE MAN. The film centers around George, played in a revelatory performance by the wonderful Colin Firth. George is ready to end his life after hearing that his long-time lover and partner has died. A college professor, George is not out as a gay man to many people, and the film's early 1960s setting is a contributing factor to his "single-ness." His best friend, Charley (the always amazing Julianne Moore) is a great social distraction, but she's not really helping him heal, and that's not completely her fault.

The grieving George eventually takes some unexpected personal risks when a curious student in one of his classes tries to get closer to him. Firth plays all of these scenes with buttoned-up emotions and a rigid but calm exterior, which is all the more powerful when the cracks show.

I believe that an amazing cast can elevate an average movie to a greater one, and A SINGLE MAN has a great cast. But the director is no slouch, either. Though a film directing novice, Ford knows image, and it's also clear that he's a student of film history. My favorite thing about A SINGLE MAN, in fact, is the meticulous and studied frame composition and deliberate (sometimes mechanical) camera work. To an expert viewer, it might feel a bit too studied, as if directed by a film school student. But even if that's true, it's a great demonstration complete with the kind of emotion that can't be taught from a book. A SINGLE MAN is a moving and beautiful film.

4.0 out of 4

3 more months...gone!

I guess I can't expect anyone to read this if I don't put anything new up here, huh? The good news is that the award season has started, which means that I tend to make viewing more of a priority in my busy life.

If I'm correct, I've seen a number of films that I haven't blogged about. While I make every attempt to write a clear and detailed review of every film I watch, I might be too far removed from viewing certain films to write a quality review now without watching them again. Once such example would be INCEPTION, a fantastic film with so many complexities that I couldn't do it justice without another viewing. For these films, I'll post some "mini-reviews" here to get caught up and then expand on them if and when I watch the films again. (I WILL watch INCEPTION again.)

I'm looking forward to movie season! I hope that anyone out there who is reading this will join me here. And please give me your two cents! I'd love to compare my take on things to yours.

-Keith