How Much Does Your Life Weigh?

I decided on some last minute shuffling and the previous movie I intended to post as number eight moved up two spots so here is my former seventh favorite film from 2009 now dropping a spot to number eight:

8. Up in the Air (2009)

Along with Public Enemies, I found Up in the Air to be one of the most surprising films from last year (Everything else on this list I was anticipating and at times even impatient to see). The film comes from director Jason Reitman the director of Thank You for Smoking (2005) and the Oscar nominated Juno (2007). Also, if you were wondering and didn't already know, he is indeed the son of Ivan Reitman, the director of Ghost Busters (1984) and Stripes (1981). A few months ago I would have even guessed that Up in the Air had a big chance to take best picture this Oscar season. It had a number of magazine article campaigns, had great reviews, and it's principle cast were hitting their mark promoting the film but sadly the buzz has died down considerably. Plus the campaign for The Hurt Locker looks to be unstoppable.

The movie follows George Clooney as Ryan Bingham, a career hatchetman hired out from a company to handle the dirty work of firing employees from businesses that are unwilling to do the job personally. Bingham is a man of finely tuned people skills, his success is driven by how well he understands the way in which people tick. His job is thrown on its head when an up-and-coming employee, Natalie Keener (Played by Anna Kendrick), proposes a new more efficient and economically sound way of laying people off, by computer interface. What follows is Natalie accompanying Bingham on a few of his rounds to fully get a grasp on the way he works and to compare and contrast the two techniques.

The film is mainly a commentary on the impersonal impression of the global information age. Luckily this focus is able to deter the movie from feeling like a dated piece on the current economic state of the country. Bingham himself is a product of the era in which he lives, always surrounded by people yet never truly connecting with them. They're his colleagues, business associates, fellow passengers, or service attendants but never his close personal loved ones. He has no connections grounding him, not even a place he can really call home, except for the sky. His business is also a product of the times. Like I mentioned before, the workers he lays off are from other businesses, ones that have to hire someone outside to do the uncomfortable job for them, starting the film's level of disconnection. The integration of Natalie's new business proposal is likely to further this divide. The difference between Bingham and his company is that Bingham is at heart a good guy, he just isn't able, or perhaps meant to connect with other human beings. It's just not in his nature.

Clooney is in top form. I remember reading an article I believe from roughly two years ago about the actor that stated he was one of the few actors today comparable to the likes of Cary Grant, Clark Gable, and so forth and Clooney holds up to the claim exceptionally well in Up in the Air. It's an admirable accomplishment to take a character responsible for delivering terrible news to other individuals on a daily basis and make the man extremely likable and few actors could pull that task off as well as he does.

Now while the movie is essentially a drama that doesn't mean it's an outright downer. Reitman's dramas have been pocketed with many great comedic moments and Up in the Air is no different. In fact I would claim this to be his best movie yet. While Thank You for Smoking is indeed very clever, it's a bit of a caricature, especially in comparison to the more realistically grounded (Intentional, forgive me) Up in the Air and while Juno has a lot of emotional weight behind it I find that somewhat deflated by its characters and dialogue which occasionally ring false. However, Up in the Air's shortcoming's are minor in comparison and is not something to be missed. It's powerful and effective in a way that isn't overbearing and it's able to put a silver lining of optimism in even the darkest of clouds.

The Spirit of Adventure.

I just realized that the Oscars are less than a week away, I thought that they were on the 14th instead of the 7th for some reason so that means I'm going to have to hurry up if I want to post all ten of these before this Sunday. So moving on, I give you number nine:

9. Up (2009).

Pixar's 10th film and there seems to be no end in sight for the company's success. Up has also made a mark for itself in Oscar history being the second animated movie to be nominated for Best Picture, the first is Disney's Beauty and the Beast (1991), and the first animated feature to accomplish this since the creation of the best animated film category. Perhaps it wouldn't have been nominated without the new 10 best picture nominee format but it's still something to be proud of since Pixar no longer has to be regulated to hanging out at the kid's table of best animated feature each year.

Up is the story of Carl Fredricksen, an elderly man attempting to fill his wife's wishes years after her death. The first twenty-five minutes are clearly the strongest moments of the movie. We get a brief glimpse of the couple's life together, their struggles and their love, and the moments are sweet, tender, and heartbreaking. The way Pixar is able to take decades of the lives of its characters, sum them up wordlessly in a montage lasting only a few minutes, and turn its audience into a bunch of blubbering buffoons clearly shows talent. There really is no other American animation studio able to compete (Calm down Studio Ghibli fans, they're still on the level).

The second half of the film shows its more fantastical elements; houses lifted through the air on thousands of balloons, talking dogs (with fancy collars designed to speak about any language it seems), rare birds, and an antagonist seemingly lost in time and consumed by his own obsessions. One of my favorite aspects of the movie is the image of Carl traveling over the cliffs with his floating house tied to him. The surrealism of the image leaves its mark and impact as the house represents the memory of his wife and his obsession to fulfill her wishes. This is where Carl draws comparison with his childhood hero turned crazed villain, Charles Muntz. Muntz let his obsessed goal drive him mad with desire as he was blind to the lives of those around him and the destruction he caused and Carl may succumb to the same fate. Like the famous quote, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men do nothing." Carl is in danger of ignoring the troubles of those still in his live while still regretting the passing of his wife.

Also, not only is there no other American animation studio on par with Pixar with story telling, you'll be pressed to find a better studio able to produce CG animated films that look as good as the work from Pixar, which is not surprising considering they pioneered the technology. My favorite visual moment of the film is when Carl first lifts his house off the ground. Thousands of balloons pour out of the chimney, the quaint little building creaks and cracks, and tears off the ground and through the air, dazzling the residents of the city. The high point of this scene is the moment it passes by a little girl's window and all the colors of the balloons bounce off the floor, walls, and ceiling of her small room. It's not only a great visual treat but an invocation of that childhood wonder and sense of imagination that I felt as a kid while watching Disney's classic films and am able to revisit with the work of Pixar Studios.

I Rob Banks.

Since The Oscars are nearly upon us I think it's about time I put together a "Best of 2009" list and actually try and finish it before Oscar night. Granted, I still haven't been able to see a number of movies from last year that I was anticipating. The Informant!, Antichrist, Mother, The White Ribbon, and Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans are just a few that have eluded me for some time. So I will have to carry on without them and post a top ten consisting of the other 40 or so movies I've seen from last year. So without further delay I'll kick things off with number ten:

10. Public Enemies (2009)

First off, I've never been a huge fan of Michael Mann. Though I do own and enjoy a number of his movies he's never been among my most beloved filmmakers. Much like Christopher Nolan, Mann is a director who's work I can admire but I have never been able to really connect with. I wouldn't deny that they're both talented craftsmen but I've always felt the cold shoulder from their pictures. With Mann it's been like that up until Public Enemies (well not entirely, The Insider (1999) is the main other movie from Mann that I found pretty moving but Public Enemies is perhaps my favorite of his I've seen so far).

Johnny Depp plays the legendary John Dillinger in probably one of the most overlooked performances of the year, or perhaps forgotten is a better way to describe it. Depp's charisma works wonders as Dillinger, a fascinating individual infatuated with his own criminal celebrity. Perhaps my favorite scene in the film is when Dillinger is being escorted in the back of a police cab and he cracks a smile as he sees bystanders on either side of the car snapping pictures and giving him their undivided attention. The way the movie follows Dillinger, scratching away at the surface to explore how he lives life in the moment, always on a razor's edge, while still leaving the man as mysterious as he was to begin with is something I find to be a thing of beauty and dare I say, almost poetic. This doesn't strike me as a standard biopic, it's a character piece for sure but it spends its time on the nature of the individual rather than historical accuracy of the time, which is why I can let it off the hook for its numerous inconsistencies with the occurrence of actual events.

Speaking of things of beauty I must go on to mention the digital filming. Perhaps it doesn't make it look as realistic of a depiction of the era as one might hope from most period films but like the way it handles Dillinger's character I felt this also added to the poetic feel of the picture. Sure it takes place in the 1930s but the look of the film gives it a timeless appeal and reinforces the romantic notions behind the attraction of Dillinger's life of crime which awarded him wealth, excitement, and fame.

In the end Dillinger lived his life at his own pace and was a man who lived by his own decisions, which is truly rare. It's not hard to realize that this would ultimately lead to fueling his life as an outlaw. It also isn't hard to realize how quickly this would burn out. I can't think of a better way to describe Dillinger's highly combustible way of living than one of the famous lines from the movie Blade Runner (1982), "The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long."

The Great Stone Face.

I haven't posted in about two weeks and meant to catch up on things this weekend but I've been feeling under the weather lately. So to make up for lost time I was going to do a number of posts involving a couple movies each and without wasting much time lets get right to tonight's Buster Keaton double feature.

Buster Keaton, after Charles Chaplin, is possibly the most recognized name in silent film. Since both were well known as comedic filmmakers of their time the two draw a lot of comparisons. If pressed I'd lean more towards Chaplin personally just because the nature of his films always displayed their emotional elements somewhat stronger than Keaton's. However, Buster Keaton was still a visual marvel, a daring and superb stuntman, and of course quite funny. Recently I watched two of his films Our Hospitality (1923) and Sherlock Jr. (1924).

In Our Hospitality Keaton plays a young man unwittingly trapped in the center of an age old family feud while simultaneously falling for a young girl from the family attempting to send him six feet underground. The story is simple and charming, and is really just there to set up a number of visual gags and an unbelievable chase sequence towards the end that even involves a tumble off a waterfall. I found at times that some of the stunts towards the end of the film looked so dangerous that half the time I was more concerned with Keaton's well being than finding humor in the situation.

Our Hospitality may be one of my least favorite of the few Keaton films I've seen but it's still a great picture. Keaton plays his usual dope character as solidly as ever and it's hard not to love the fool. It really says a lot about Keaton himself, his outlook, and his brand of humor. The way the movie, for the most part, revolves around making him look like a fool, but how his hero is always able to persevere and overcome the obstacles. How foolish we all must look, bumbling through our lives, but there is a heart to it, and a smile, and an optimism to overcome and that is what makes me think of Buster Keaton and why I love him and his work.

Also, how low Our Hospitality ranks for me must say a lot for some of Keaton's other work, particulary The General (1926) and Sherlock Jr. While Our Hospitality is hilarious and charming, Sherlock Jr. is just outright brilliant. There are even a sequence or two where I'm still puzzled just how Keaton pulled things off especially considering the thing was made around 90 years ago.

Sherlock Jr. opens with Keaton working at a movie theater, running the projector and cleaning the place up. His character is shown to be smitten with a young lady who also has another suitor who frames him for the theft of a watch from the household. The story again is nothing to really dwell on, later is where the real magic of the film begins.

Keaton's character is also obsessed with learning to be a detective and falls asleep during the showing of film about a young detective and imagines himself projected into the movie. The film shows this quite literally with one of the movie's most memorable moments in which it shows Keaton standing up and walking right into the frame of the picture. The movie within the movie then begins to change locations with seamless editing as Keaton falls around from set to set.

This movie is Keaton at his very best and closes things off with an exciting motorcycle sequence with Keaton riding on the handlebars oblivious to the fact that no one is apparently steering the thing any longer. About every action sequence looks amazing even by today's standards. Plus, it is well known that this is the movie in which Keaton fractured his neck and didn't learn about the injury until a considerable time later. Also, the way the movie explores the film within a film fascinates me because of what it says about the way we as an audience can enjoy movies as a much needed form of escape. The way his character desires to be this other character is something we've all probably done at one point or another.

Milkshake.

Since Valentine's Day is just several days around the corner I thought it would be a great time to display a little love for a film (in this case a pair of films) about the subject of love. I like a lot of romantic movies whether they're new or old, in English or a foreign language, as long as they appear genuine and attack that elusive and mysterious subject fearlessly and with a longing to understand its depth and enchantments on every individual gripped by its irrational throes.

There are a lot of romantic movies I would be happy to discuss like Roman Holiday (1953), City Lights (1931), In the Mood for Love (2001) and many others, but what I want to talk about tonight are Richard Linklater's two complimentary films, Before Sunrise (1995) and Before Sunset (2004). The reason I've chosen these two is because they're not entirely unknown, they have a small passionate following, but I still can't help but feel they're under-appreciated films.

Before Sunrise's set-up is simple. A young American is traveling on a train through Europe and the night before his flight back to The United States he by chance meets a young French woman and decides to throw caution to the wind and ask her if she would spend his remaining night wandering around Vienna before he has to head home. She thankfully says yes and thus one of the best romances in cinema begins.

In the movie the two only exchange first names but the things they discover in the few hours of each other's company is much more personal and meaningful. They exchange broad questions about family, life, and love. I don't think their philosophical inquiries are to be taken too seriously but they paint a picture of two young people with big questions about the adult lives of which they are about to embark rather than solid answers to the way the universe works. The two films use these along with their observational opinions and personal stories from when they were kids to not only connect the characters to one another but with the audience watching as well, they develop the characters as fully rounded human beings and makes it impossible to think of them as merely fictional characters on celluloid.

I was originally going to have an individual post for each film but after the first time I saw both movies long ago it's always been hard to think of one without the other, they compliment each other perfectly. In Sunrise the two are young, naive, and a little awkward. One of the best moments of the movie that displays this is where the two of them are listening to an album at a record store. Enclosed in a small room they don't a speak word to each other and continue playfully glancing at one another and then quickly looking away before the other glances up. The scene is pretty much how most young couples start out. Each glance is just like the little dating tight-walk tricks people play during budding relationships. Not to give too much attention, but to show interest while not coming on too strong and while looking away they still feel the other's eyes.

Sunset is different. These two have grown almost a decade and the perfect line to describe them is spoken by Jesse when he says "I'm older and my problems are deeper but I'm more equiped to handle them." They're not fledgling adults anymore and while they're stronger people overall the problems they have cut deeper and more emotionally into their lives which we see displayed in the last thirty minutes of the film while they bare their souls to each other. This is why I personally prefer Sunset out of the two, because while the first is whimsical and endearing the second is so emotionally rich and Hawke and Delpy display their hurt and longing without fault. The ending brings heartbreak and jubilation to their story with such force that I want to watch the two films immediately after it ends, and what better way to describe love than as a serious of instances that make one feel heartbreak and jubilation?

Another thing that strikes me about Sunset is the way the movie primarily takes place in real time, we don't lose moments of their time together cutting to a new scene like in Sunrise which touches upon the idea of memory and "the moment." When Before Sunrise ends, before the credits, we see a series of images reprising all the places they spent together with the hint of their presence lingering, capturing the power of memory and that night they spent together, how it never really dies as long as we're here to remember it. Sunset however opens with a series of shots, not of where they have been, but where they will soon pass by. The movie captures the moments they spend together much more thoroughly, like what Jesse quotes earlier in the movie "Life is in the doing rather than getting what you want." It's about how the future is an extension of the present. We should make the most out of the present and we should make the most out of the moments we spend with those we care about. Because like that one night they first have in Vienna, a moment can stretch on indefinitely prolonged in our memory, and the sun may rise and set countless times, but those moments will still last.

King for a Night.

For a filmmaker with such a large body of work as Martin Scorsese a few underrated gems are sure to be overlooked and overshadowed by some of their more popular work. Beyond his crime movies like Mean Streets (1973), Goodfellas (1991) , and The Departed (2006) and such concrete classics like Taxi Driver (1976) and Raging Bull (1980) a few great films are undeservedly pushed to the back, quite notably his comedies like the hilarious Kafkaesque After Hours (1985) and one of my absolute favorites from Scorsese, which I'll be discussing here, The King of Comedy (1983).

Anyone who thinks Robert De Niro lacks a range of roles needs to watch his work prior to Goodfellas. Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, Hi, Mom! (1970), Brazil (1985), and The King of Comedy all show some great versatility from the seasoned actor. I would also say that his turn in The King of Comedy is one of his best.

De Niro is Rupert Pupkin, an aspiring comic with grand fantasies of jumping right up to the comedic big leagues through his desire for a spot on a Johnny Carson-like late night show hosted by Jerry Langford (Played by comic legend Jerry Lewis). Pupkin himself is naive, delusional, and ultimately pathetic in his attempts to corner the famous Langford. While at first seemingly determined it's shown that Pupkin is instead just oblivious to the reality of his surroundings and situations while he's stuck in his own fantasies of fame. There are several great scenes where the movie plays out some of Pupkin's fantasies which involve buddying up with his idol Jerry Langford and often consist of praise and admiration showered upon him from the comic great. De Niro plays Pupkin seamlessly. He constructs a performance with subtly and care. As the character slips further into his own delusions his mannerisms never seem forced or over the top which shape the character into a realistic portrayal of a person governed by the visions in their own head.

After the inevitable failure with his simple attempts to jump into the good graces of television entertainment Pupkin, with the help of a crazed fan of Langford's played by Sandra Bernhard, kidnaps Langford in an all or nothing attempt to force his way onto the late night airwaves. Scorsese uses the ending result as a big satirical kick in the ass to the entertainment industry and it's a shame that the director hasn't made many more warped, yet intelligent comedies like The King of Comedy (Thankfully, as I mentioned earlier, After Hours is a great one from Scorsese as well).

Though to categorize the movie simply as a comedy is somewhat unjust. It's funny for certain, and a great satire of the industry, but it's also a great exploration of a mind distorted by their own version of reality, the one in their head. Though not as dark as De Niro's turn in Taxi Driver, it's perhaps just as interesting. It is also the type of main character we rarely see in some of our best and most popular movies. Pupkin isn't a hero, commendable, or rarely even that likable up until he delivers his "Schmuck for a lifetime" line, which after all the crazed plans he has throughout the film rings surprisingly insightful. But in some way, in an almost sad way, Pupkin feels all too relatable. His fantasies feel like an extension of the illusions and day dreams most every individual must at some point in their life fantasize about, just most of us are able to keep our feet firmly grounded in reality which perhaps in it's own way is a blessing and a curse.

The United States of Zombieland.

I recently watched Zombieland (2009) again since seeing it during its theatrical run and thought I should do a little write-up for it since the DVD and Bluray release was just a few days ago.

Zombieland is one of two high profile movies from 2009 that star unlikely leading man Jesse Eisenberg. I've been a fan of his since The Squid and the Whale (2005) so even though I'm surprised to see him heading two reasonably big features I'm glad to see him get the chance. I'm also pretty certain that there is going to be some backlash from people who think Michael Cera has a monopoly on the socially awkward outcast kind of character but these sort of things happen.

In Zombieland Eisenberg is Columbus (Characters in the movie don't give their real names but places, be they destinations or hometowns) one of the few remaining survivors of a zombie infested America who lives by a list of (often times humorous) zombie survival rules like the double-tap and wearing your seat belt. The movie nonchalantly explains that the zombies came about from variations of Mad Cow disease and doesn't feel the need to go further into detail, nor do I think it should, it's a movie about enjoying the time with the characters rather than wasting it on exposition that lacks any kind of emotional or character personality understanding.

Speaking of characters, let me get to the rest of them. Columbus first meets Tallahassee, a rough, slightly unhinged man with a personal vendetta for the zombies that plague the land and yet he's also strangely enough the most childlike and lovable guy in the flick. The two work like a classic Odd Couple routine and compliment each other's eccentricities very well which leads to some fine comedic moments. Along the way they cross paths with Wichita and Little Rock, a pair of girl con artists who dupe them several times before the group of them naturally become travel companions.

Zombieland is one of the most pleasant surprises I've seen from 2009. It opens up with clever excerpts from Columbus' survival list with visual accompaniment and from the beginning it's not only very funny but also engaging. One of my favorite things about the humor is the movie's use of pop culture. Pop culture references and jokes can often times bog down a decent or even good comedy, immediately dating them and making them feel inauthentic. In Zombieland however, the use of pop culture is quite fitting. These people have just witnessed the death of modern day society which essentially means the death of popular culture so every little reference feels more a part of themselves that should be preserved rather than a joke about some recent movie star or popular band.

I did find a few opportunities for improvement like how the female characters feel underwritten in comparison to the males and that the girls also seem to go against character in the last act and turn from the most intelligent of the group to making perhaps the dumbest decisions but they're minor problems in respect to the entire movie. So in conclusion, I find Zombieland to be a thoroughly amusing comedy and one of the bigger unpredicted breakout hits from 2009.

Also, if anyone is wondering now that I've done four of these, eventually I will most likely watch something that I don't actually like, but just to get things straightened out I'm a selective viewer at the moment. Most of what I watch are things I anticipate enjoying and unless anyone has suggestions or I'm paid to go see other things this trend will likely continue.