The Men Who Stare at Goats (Friday, November 6, 2009) (159)

I first heard about this movie in mid-September when Stephen Colbert interviewed author Jon Ronson who wrote the book the movie was based on, The Men Who Stare at Goats. The interview and segment, I thought was hilarious, and the Army program he described was totally bizarre and amazing.

The story goes that at some point after the Vietnam war, the Army began experimenting with 'new-age' psychic and transcendental meditative powers to be able to use love in their military work. Ultimately, they used these skills to kill their enemy with mind-powers and hippie-artstuff rather than using traditional weapons. They created the secret First Earth Battalion, a group of soldiers who were trained to be psychics and extrasensory perceptors, and actually worked to kill goats by exploding their hearts through deep concentrated thoughts.

Suffice it to say, after watching Colbert and knowing that George Clooney and Ewan McGreggor were in the film adaptation of the book, I was totally excited for the film. Sadly, the movie is terrible. It takes amazing material with tremendous potential (I think) and turns it into such a banal comedy with no discernible plot and modernizes the story until it basically trivializes the American tragedy in Iraq.

I have to blame director Grant Heslov and writer Peter Straughan for the changes of narrative and tone (I have not read the book, but it is a work of non-fiction). For reasons I can't figure out, the main character of the movie, Ewan McGreggor, is a journalist at the start of the Iraq war in 2003. He finds out about the secret Army force and tags along on one of their missions in Iraq. The suggestion is that the First Earth Battalion was active in the early stages of the Iraq war.

But it wasn't - the program was ended in 1995. This is not a huge problem (I'll give them poetic licence to change historical facts), but it becomes upsetting when they suggest that some of the torture that happened in the early stages of the war was done by these super-soldier psychic clowns (clowns gone bad).

Clooney, as the one somewhat rational and serious First Earther is pretty good in the role. He's very earnest and convincing. Jeff Bridges, as the head guru and creator of the battalion is also funny. Kevin Spacey, as the self-obsessed, maniac present-day leader of the unit who led the group from good to evil, is terrible - but we shouldn't forget that he forgot how to be a good actor sometime in 1997, so this is no surprise.

The biggest problem I had was that as I watched it, it was totally unclear what was happening and what was going to happen next. The plot was totally invisible and meandering. The story should not have been about some over-the-hill soldiers in their 50s still holding on to their old powers from 20 years ago - it should have been about the program that existed in the 1970s and 1980s and how they did what they did. It also should not have been a screwball Austin-Powers-like comedy. If it had been a bit more sober, I think the comic elements (staring at goats, bending spoons with your mind, something called 'sparkly eyes') would have been more powerful.

In the end, this is a totally unsuccessful movie. If you really want an interesting and hilarious explanation of the First Earth Battalion, watch the Colbert interview with Ronson and his skit on goat staring here and here.

Stars: 1 of 4

Duplicity (Monday, November 2, 2009) (158)

I have never been a huge fan of writer/director Tony Gilroy. Most of his previous screenplays (Michael Clayton - which he also directed, the Bourne movies, State of Play) have left me cold. Although I understand that he's a smart guy making smart movies, I never really connected to anything he's had his hands in. His stories are super elaborate and fold over and back on themselves four or five times, so that sometimes it hard to know which way is up. Here, the whole point of the story is that you don't know which way is up - and it works really well.

Clive Owen and Julia Roberts are two professional spies working at times for the CIA and MI6 or for private contractors doing corporate intel. They meet and fall in love and then hatch a plan to work for two rival multinational businesses against one another in order to steal trade secrets and sell them to outside buyers. Throughout the film, it is never clear whether what is happening on screen is an honest conversation between them or if it is a ruse as part of a greater scheme to co-opt the information they're supposed to be protecting and stealing for their bosses.

Unlike Gilroy's last writer/director effort, Michael Clayton, this is not a powerful drama about corporate malfeasance and corruption. This is a pure action heist comedy with fun characters and a tricky narrative.

The style of the film is ultra sleek with fresh and modern interiors and elegant moving camera shots. The whole look and feel, from the sets and costumes to the editing, score, structure and snappy dialogue leads to an overall clever, mature atmosphere. As we see the story unfolding in the present, we flash back at different stages to see how they got to that point from actions in the past. This before-and-after style also leads us to question the authenticity of what they are saying at almost every point - putting us in a position of doubt and paranoia just as they are. (It might be slightly more complicated than is necessary, but it is still enjoyable.)

I am not a big fan of Julia Roberts (I know, I probably shouldn't admit this), but I think she works well in this role. My problem with her normally is that she seems on-screen to be very conceited and cocky - as if she thinks she's better than everybody else, better than the character, better than us. Here, that arrogance works well: She is better than every one. She's a top spy and has all the moves figured out before we even know what the game is. She also has great chemistry with Owen (who I think is a great actor). The two are a great on-screen match and can verbally parry back and forth totally convincingly.

This is totally a movie for grown-ups - it's intelligent and intricate and also fast-moving and fresh. It also has one of the best uses of a classic MacGuffin in recent years. The story is not about the ultimate score, but is about the strategy and chase to get there. It's a smart movie for smart people and is totally enjoyable fun.

Stars: 3 of 4

Coco Before Chanel (Sunday, November 1, 2009) (157)

At some point in the near future we will reach a time when absolutely everyone who lived before 1950 will have a biopic made of their lives. This day will mark a small celebration when filmmakers will feel free to make movies not tied to dull life stories of semi-famous people. We will all dance in the streets as we realize that we don't have to worry about the casting of the William Techumsah Sherman movie (Willem Dafoe) or the life story of Babe Didrickson (Elizabeth Moss) or Jacques Cousteau (Scott Glenn), as all of those films will have been made. (For the record, I have not heard of any biopics of these people, but I would hope that if they ever come, they will cast these people in these roles.) In the meantime, we are left with yet another dull movie based on a dull life- Coco Before Chanel.

I guess Coco Chanel's life sounds good on paper. She was raised in an orphanage and got into 'cabaret' singing in Paris in the nineteen-aughts. ('Cabaret singing' in this film looks a hell of a lot like hooking - but I guess it was different and classier somehow.) She got set up with a rich dude who lived in the country. She was too low-class for him to introduce her to his friends, but she still lived with him and had lots of sex with him. Then she met an English friend of his who she fell in love with. Sadly he wouldn't marry her either because she was a filthy whore-like woman. Still, he got her set up in Paris as a hat designer in the later nineteen-teens - and somehow in Paris, hat designers also made lots of fancy clothes - so she became a fashion icon.

That summary is actually very fair to the movie - where almost 100 minutes are spent with her at her lover's chateau basically doing nothing. It's not even that we see her doing fashiony things like designing ball gowns or something. She spends most of her time on her back in bed with one of two men or bitching about how she wants some independence (as she eats bonbons off a silver tray in the living room of a castle). There is one scene where she makes her friend a rather frumpy dress for a costume party. There is another scene when she finds herself on vacation without an evening gown, so she goes to a dressmaker and asks for a black velour dress with no corset. Big freaking whoop.

Audrey Tautou as Coco is almost asleep, she's so boring. She's cute-ish, but not at all sexy and it's very hard to understand why men would be attracted to her. Her personality is direct and stern and almost never bright or positive. She generally seems like a serious downer who is unaware of her place in the world. (I'm not advocating for the subjugation of women, but it seems silly to me that she should be upset about her low standing in the world in a time when all women were treated as chattel.)

Mostly, the problem here is with a bad script. I think the concept of a biopic of Coco Chanel preceded the research that found that she was a rather unremarkable person before starting her fashion house. In addition, it is not explained why this has to necessarily be a story of her pre-fashion days - and not just a biography of her entire life. It would seem that if one were making a movie of her life, all the content in this film would be one scene when she was 'getting started' (the same way there was one scene in this film about her childhood in the orphanage).

I would have loved to know what she did that was so amazing for fashion (uncorsetted dresses; lower necklines; knit suits in two pieces), how she was inspired and what happened to her in the last 60 years of her life. I don't know these things about her and I would like to. I think that would all be more interesting than this forced, sad romantic tragedy.

Stars: 1.5 of 4

Gentlemen Broncos (Sunday, November 1, 2009) (156)

From the team that brought us Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre comes Gentlemen Broncos, another highly kitschy gonzo comedy set in the Mountain West. This time, Benjamin, a talented home-schooler who loves low-level Science Fiction attends a weekend program for young writers. There he meets his idol, Ronald Chevalier, played brilliantly by Jemaine Clement, and gives him a draft of his manuscript, Yeast Wars. Chevalier steals the story, changes a few names and publishes it as his latest hit novel. Meanwhile, Benjamin gets involved with a local video filmmaker who tries to produce his book into an indie film, despite many creative reservations.

The first act of this movie is truly hilarious - probably better than anything in Napoleon Dynamite (which has grown on me) or Nacho Libre (which was and has remained pretty stillborn). Sadly, after this strong part, the wheels come off the wagon and the remaining two acts are pretty bad.

As with his other films, director Jared Hess' biggest strength is the kitschy, early 1990s look of the picture. We want to avert our eyes because the fashions and hair and makeup is so terrible - but of course we all remember when everything looked this way. I happen to think this look is funny and impressive, but it is getting a bit tired. I think it's a crutch that takes the place of plot development and scripted comedy.

The acting is actually really solid throughout the film. Michael Angarano, as Benjamin, is very good and both proud and dorky (he was also very good in David Gordon Green's under-seen movie Snow Angels from last year). The center of the film is Clement as Chevalier. I am very impressed that he has been able to create two hilarious and different characters in such a short time. I guess I would normally expect Clement to base Chevalier on elements from his character on Flight of the Concords - but this is entirely fresh and new. Some of the small parts are also wonderful - like Mike White as a slow, red-necked beau to Benjamin's mother and Sam Rockwell as Bronco, Benjamin's fantasy of a masculine sci-fi superhero. (The Bronco sequences are all very funny and have a wonderful 1970s made-for-tv sci-fi look.)

Again, though, the film dies after the first 25 minutes. The script is not funny or original after this point, relying on seemingly recycled material from Dynamite or other hackneyed comedies. I wish I could like the movie more - it looks great and I laughed a lot in the first few minutes - but it is very difficult to get through. Overall, the first act is well worth watching - but turn it off or leave after that point.

Stars: 1.5 of 4

The Maid (Saturdy, October 31, 2009) (155)

The Maid is a small Chilean film about a house maid, Raquel, who works in an upper-middle class house in a fancy neighborhood in Santiago. She's in her late 30s and has spent 20-some years with the family helping to raise the four children. As she goes about her mundane day-to-day routine of vacuuming, washing clothes, cooking and minding the kids, she slips into a deep funk where she feels more and more unloved and disrespected by the household. She is somewhat hampered by migraines, so the family hires a series of assistants to help her with her tasks. Upset and insulted that she might need help, she marks her territory and works to make their lives impossible so they quit.

By far the best single element in the film is the lead performance by Catalina Saavedra. She is lovable, but somewhat pitiful; she's a proud woman who also behaves childishly; She's vulnerable and vindictive at the same time. The snapshot of her that is used in the poster for this film sums up the character and her performance perfectly. She's beaten down, but still lives to fight another day - and does so somewhat devilishly. I hope she gets attention from the various award-givers later this year and next. So far, I think hers is the best performance by a woman this year.

The tag-line of the film, "She's more or less family" encapsulates the heart of the story. Director Sebastian Silva does a wonderful job of showing how despite being so deeply rooted in this bourgeois family, Raquel will never be one of them. In the first scene, when it is her birthday and the family is trying to celebrate with her, we think it is strange that she does not want to join them. But soon we see that she is treated somewhat unkindly by them - especially by the father. He can barely get out the words to wish her a happy birthday before rushing off to his study to 'work' on his model ship building. Later, he asks that the children close the kitchen door in Raquel's face so they can eat supper together.

There is a feeling of guilt that pervades the relationship between the lady of the house, Pilar, and Raquel. Pilar does not want to step on Raquel's toes and, despite the fact that she knows the relationship is not going well and that Raquel is not happy, she cannot fire her or even give her a stern warning. At one point when Raquel has a physical fight with one of the assistants, Pilar covers for her in front of her husband. Pilar is somewhat trapped knowing Raquel's happiness is somewhat a reflection on the life that has been created for her by the family - but also that a bad attitude has an overall negative effect on the household.

This film is very reminiscent of the 2007 Argentine film Live-In Maid, which dealt with many of the same issues of class and the end of the bourgeoisie in South America. In that, there is a sense that the rich woman cannot figure out her life without the maid, who has also become her best friend. There is a sense that the monetary relationship between the two affects the personal relationship. That financial element is here too. It it hard not to wonder whether Raquel would be so well loved by the family if she did not work for them - or if their love for her is contingent on the fact that they also pay her a salary.

For a somewhat simple-looking movie, I think there is a lot of interesting sociopolitical stuff here - and the style is very intimate and immediate-feeling. Again, Saavedra's performance alone is worth the price of the ticket.

Stars: 3 of 4

This is It (Friday, October 30, 2009) (154)

When I first saw the trailer for this documentary, about seven weeks after Michael Jackson died, I had a bad feeling about it. I didn't understand why I would want to see rehearsal footage from an erstwhile concert that never took place. I figured Jackson would be as much a 'past-star' on stage as he was at the end of his life; I worried that his voice and body would not sound or look very good. As it turns out, my worries were somewhat confirmed and somewhat wrong. This is not a good movie, but Jackson was much more physical and mobile than I expected.

The biggest problem with the film is that it would seem (based on the look of the footage and an opening title) that the film was shot for internal use only and edited together to make it as 'concerty' a movie possible. But the movie is not a concert. It is rehearsal footage. Most of the 'songs' in the film are just run-throughs of the dancers' blocking with some dancing. MJ sings only about half of the songs, relying on pre-recorded vocals (with live band music) on most tracks. On some songs he sings at bit more, but the mix is strangely very quiet on the vocals and stronger on the the band (I can only imagine that this has something to do with the bad quality of the vocals available).

This is all very frustrating. I feel like the footage we see is not good enough for a documentary; I feel ripped off. There is great footage of Jackson dancing (he seems to still be a great dancer in the months leading up to his death), but not enough substantive stuff for a feature film. We get the outlines of most songs - all the big hits: Thriller, Beat It, Billie Jean, Man in the Mirror, Human Nature, Bad, etc. - but none of the soul of these songs. I would rather have sat in my living room and listened to a CD of Thriller or Off the Wall - or even HIStory, disc 1.

Making everything more strange is that there are brief interviews with some of the dancers and band members where they talk about how *amazing* Jackson is. (I mean, he's paying their salaries - so I don't know why they would say anything else.) This hagiography is no big surprise (I don't really expect them to raise questions about his pedophilia or obsession with plastic surgery), but it sort of feels like they're all forcing the issue too much. I'm sick of the revisionist history on the man. He was once brilliant and beautiful and became a physical and social freak show. This was not our misunderstanding of him; he was the problem himself.

A few surprises and observations in the film: Beat It is a song that does not age well. It sounds very dated now and the guitar solo bridge is trite and silly; Human Nature is really a beautiful song - possibly Jackson's most beautiful; At times, Jackson looks like a kabuki dancer with a face covered in make-up, even when he's not wearing make-up; The moment when he talks about his in-ear monitor being a 'fist in his ear' is hilarious - but only for the dirty joke that comes to mind; It's not clear that Jackson is a nice person to work with - not that he's a jerk, but his personality does not really come through in the film.

I think the saddest part of the film and the biggest problem with the fact that it is simply rehearsal footage, is that Jackson never speaks for himself about his feelings and never talks directly to the camera about what is going on. He speaks to the director of the show (and the movie), Kenny Ortega, and he speaks to the band and the dancers, but he never speaks to us (or to a director off-camera in an interview, as it typical for a doc like this). This made me think that he is a man (animal) in a cage. We see him doing stuff and interacting with people, but we never hear from him. Maybe this is the deepest part of the film - after all, this is who he was at the end of his life.

Stars: 1 of 4

Rembrandt's J'Accuse (Sunday, October 25, 2009) (153)

Peter Greenaway is an interesting filmmaker - and by interesting, I mean that he makes weird, off-beat movies that are not always successful and sometimes are downright bad. It is no surprise then that a documentary by him would also be non-standard and a bit cheeky.

In this film, Greenaway presents a case for how Rembrandt's The Nightwatch is actually an artistic indictment of the painting's subjects having murdered a man to enhance their political power. He presents 31 pieces of evidence and unusual variations in the painting that lead him to this conclusion and he tells a very compelling story that leaves us totally convinced about Rembrandt's motives and the guilt of the accused men.

Formally the film is very interesting. Throughout most of it, Greenaway appears in a box at the bottom of the screen talking directly to us as he makes his arguments. We do not see art or academic historians, but Greenaway makes points from the point of view of those experts. In the background are close-ups of the painting itself as well as dramatic re-enactments of Rembrandt speaking to the men he was painting getting them set up in costumes and staging them. There are also scenes where Greenaway questions and cross-examines the historical figures (again, actors in period costumes) as if in a murder trial.

Of course, the film is is it's own formal work of art - and reminiscent of how modern and contemporary artists (Roy Lichtenstein, Cindy Sherman, Thomas Struth, etc.) have re-examined the old masters in their works. It is a fresh look at a somewhat stuffy old work. It sounds totally dumb to say, but he really makes the work come to life - and not just because he has actors impersonating the characters on the canvas. He adds all sorts of behind-the-scenes drama that makes the dark background of the painting brighten for a moment. He does this with a tongue planted firmly in his cheek - though it is not silly, just self-aware. This is probably Greenaway's most successful work in a decade or more. It's a lot of fun!

Stars: 3 of 4