"The Men Who State At Goats" Movie Review

This week we are going back to a new release with The Men Who Stare At Goats (R). Ewan McGregor stars as a reporter researching a secret government program that fosters the creation of psychic warriors during the Iraq war. George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, and Kevin Spacey costar, and Grant Heslov directs.

Ryan: One could easily make the case that George Clooney is the film star of the decade. From crowd pleasers (O Brother Where Art Thou? & The Ocean films) to critical fare (Syriana & Michael Clayton) Clooney has successfully navigated the cinematic spectrum. He's got box-office hits to his name as well as Oscar gold. But he's not been without his misfires (Solaris and The Good German) and regrettably The Men Who Stare at Goats would fall into this category. I wouldn't classify it as a bad film but it leaves a lot to be desired.

Andy: There is no question that The Men Who Stare at Goats is not up to the unreasonably high standards of a movie that George Clooney movie. It is pretty decent, but it seems to be unsure what kind of movie it is supposed to be. The ad campaign made it seem strictly like a ridiculous comedy, but in actuality there are several moments where the film takes itself very seriously. Instead of playing like a dramedy, it comes across as disjointed and lacking focus.

Ryan: By it's nature The Men Who Stare at Goats is a quite an absurd movie but that does make for some humorous moments. At times the film is engaging but unfortunately those scenes of worth are few and far between. The filmmakers are unable to aptly execute the full potential of the film. With an A+ cast and an intriguing premise the recipe for a successful movie was there. But it just doesn't pan out that way. This is just one of those films where the final product doesn't measure up to the parts involved.

Andy: The title of the movie suggests that this is going to be a comedy. Coupled with the fairly hilarious shot of Clooney staring down a goat that was the centerpiece of the ad campaign, it seemed like this was going to be a straight-up farce. It turns out that the scene the title was referring to was supposed to be one of the more serious parts of the movie. Ultimately movie’s funnier scenes work better, but they don’t quite hold the narrative together as well as you’d like it to.

Ryan: There's no doubt that the cast involved was the major selling point for the film. I've already talked up Clooney but it's not challenging talking up Bridges, Spacey or McGregor as well. But while there are flashes of (some) brilliance--for the most part--the performances in the film are of the uninspired variety. Bridges is basically playing a watered down version of The Dude (from The Big Lebowski). Spacey has phoned in most of his performances of this decade and that pattern continues here. And Ewan McGregor as a Midwestern news reporter---just not happening.

Andy: The cast is very recognizable, and they do an okay job. Clooney seems to really enjoy doing comedies, and he is definitely the highlight here. I thought McGregor did an okay job, but there is something a little strange about McGregor making repeated (ironic?) references to Jedi in a movie that isn’t actually about Star Wars. Bridges and Spacey are certainly lackluster, and the rest of the cast is merely adequate.

The Men Who Stare At Goats ends up being an interesting movie, but not quite as good as it seems like it should be. Final grade: C+.

Best of Decade, Part II

After a look at the calendar, we realized that in order to finish our decade review and look at the Oscar hopefuls at the end of the year, we do not have time for a new release this week. With the films coming out of Hollywood this week a little questionable anyway, we continue our look at the best films of the decade with selections number eight and seven.

Andy: Number eight for me is the 2004 drama Sideways (R). Alexander Payne directed this film based on the well regarded Rex Peterson novel of the same name. Paul Giamatti and Thomas Hayden Church are on a bachelor’s week in California’s wine country before Church’s wedding. The two display various modes of irresponsibility, eventually meeting up with two women, played by Viginia Madsen and Sandra Oh.

Sideways is a movie about people who love fine wine, and I don’t love fine wine at all. After watching the movie again recently, I was struck by how much I was able to connect with this movie in spite of so much of the action centering around something I don’t really care about. Part of the appeal is that the movie is beautifully shot by Alexander Payne. The composition is impeccable, with Payne juxtaposing the beautiful rolling vineyards and mountains with the awkwardly authentic used car lot on the highway the main characters walk by each time they visit their favorite wine-tasting restaurant. In addition to the well constructed visuals, the acting is top-notch all the way around. Paul Giamatti did not even receive an Oscar nomination that year, and that is probably one of the biggest oversights of the entire decade. The Academy tried to make up for this by nominating him the following year for his supporting role in the largely forgettable Cinderella Man, but the more difficult and nuanced performance was clearly in Sideways. Virginia Madsen did get a well deserved Oscar nomination. In a key scene about half way through the movie, she explains why she fell in love with wine in the first place, and it is probably one of the best-acted monologues from the past ten years.

Upon first viewing, Sideways does not seem like it is a great movie, but it grows on you. The ridiculousness of the story combined with great directing and acting make it a movie that has virtually no flaws. It is clearly one of the best pieces of filmmaking this decade.

Ryan: High Fidelity (2000) scores the number eight position on my list. In the film John Cusack stars as a snobbish record star owner trying to deal with his messed up love life.

I kept trying to think of reasons to leave High Fidelity (directed by Stephen Frears) off my list. It's a film that I've always really liked and I kept feeling that my subjectivity was trumping my objectivity when evaluating the film. If one considers themselves a music elitist or a habitual list maker or a person who over analyzes every aspect of their life, especially with regard to romantic relationships, then High Fidelity is a movie that hits close to home and consequently it did with me. But upon reviewing it two things struck me. One, it's an extremely well-made film that holds together stronger than (almost) any other romantic-comedy of this era. And secondly, and this is what really sold it for me, High Fidelity succeeds as a swan song for the '90's. It was based on a 1995 Nick Hornby book (of the same name) and was in production and filmed during the late '90's. So subsequently it captures the zeitgeist of the '90's (at least with regard to hipsters) while also tapping into the self-absorbed attitude that permeated throughout the decade. Some movies just have it with regard to reflecting a specific time, place and feeling and High Fidelity definitely delivers on that premise.


Andy: Speaking of films using music to reflect a time period, Almost Famous (2000) cracks my list at number seven. Much like Ryan’s dilemma with High Fidelity, I kept thinking that this movie would not make my final ten, but in a recent viewing of the film it became clear that this is one of the most epic movies of the decade. Cameron Crowe wrote and directed this loosely autobiographical tale of a young rock writer (Patrick Fuget) on assignment for Rolling Stone Magazine. He has to interview a rock star (Billy Crudup) while managing his relationship with a “band-aide” (Kate Hudson), and his mother (Francis McDormand).

What is perhaps most striking about Almost Famous ten years later is the impact it has made on Hollywood as well as on me personally. Cameron Crowe had a pretty rough decade for a director, but he started it off with what I have come to think of as his best movie. There are so many memorable aspects of the movie that it seems almost impossible that it is even from this decade. Stillwater’s (the film’s fictional band) song “Fever Dog” might as well actually be a 70s rock anthem. Catch phrases abound from “It’s all happening,” to “I am a golden god!” The ensemble cast is much more recognizable now than when the movie came out. Zooey Deschenal, Jason Lee, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Jimmy Fallon have all seen their star rise since this movie came out, and Rainn Wilson (The Office) even makes an appearance. From a personal standpoint, I don’t think any movie from the past ten years has invaded my vernacular quite like Almost Famous, from Jimmy Fallon’s refrain of “respectfully,” to Rolling Stone’s Ben Fong-Torres saying “cray-zee…,” there are things that I say so regularly that it’s hard to believe they came from this film. And if a film stays with me that well, there is no way to keep it off the ten best of the decade.


Ryan: Coming in at number seven on my list is Alfonso Cuaron's dystopian sci-fi thriller, Children of Men (2006). Set in the not so distant future Children of Men (starring Clive Owen and Julianne Moore) imagines a world where women are unable to bear children. Needless-to-say the fabric that holds society together unravels in a world without children and a world without a hope.

Children of Men cracks my list because it's an immensely powerful film. It works not only as a great piece of science fiction--challenging audience members while also entertaining them--but it also reflects current societal problems as well. Throughout the decade it was (mostly) the genre pictures (also think of V for Vendetta and Batman Begins) that best dealt with the challenging philosophical questions of our contemporary society. But it was Children of Men that best processed those fears and questions into a fully realized fable of our times. Cuaron deserves immense praise for crafting a movie that's modern in its storytelling and filming techniques but timeless in its exploration of the human condition. Clive Owen also deserves a lot of credit for the film's success as it takes a special kind of actor to effectively appear in (almost) every scene in the movie.


That’s all for this week. Stay tuned in future weeks for the remainder of our countdown.

Best of the Decade Part I

With the decade coming to a close we’ve decide to get wistful and each take a look at our ten favorite films of the past 10 years. We will continue to check out some of the new releases, over the next couple of months, but as Hollywood goes into a relative off season, we’ll be counting down our best of the decade, each taking two at a time. This week we each talk about our number ten and nine films.



Ryan: My countdown begins with 2002's About a Boy (PG-13). Directed by Chris and Paul Weitz About a Boy is the modern tale of the unlikely bond between a rich unmotivated bachelor and a geeky heartfelt teenager. What sets About a Boy apart from most of its contemporaries is the movie's pitch perfect tone. It's a film with humor but it's not a comedic farce. It is also a film that deals with some heavy ideas (suicide) but it's not a dark dramatic film. About a Boy captures an authentic slice of life and presents a story with comedy and drama (and everything else in between). The movie is sentimental with it's themes of the importance of a family and the needing of meaningful relationships but it's translated in a manner that the audience can relate too. Additionally, while Hugh Grant never materialized into this era's Cary Grant, he does deliver a strong and winning performance in the movie. In some regard the film does play to his strengths but Grant strikes gold for crafting a character that--despite his negative traits--the audience has no problem rooting for. All in all About a Boy has matured into a modern classic.



Andy: Number ten for me is Knocked Up from 2007. The 2000s were a pretty good time for comedies, with really strong work coming from a few different directions. Will Ferrell had a nice run and some of Ben Stiller’s movies from earlier in the decade were very strong as well. But no one was bigger in the decade that super-producer Jud Apatow. Apatow directed just three movies during the decade, but The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up were both elite comedies: the kind that is actually a really well made movie as well. Either of them could have made my list. Both are surprisingly honest looks at the lives of real & believable people, but Knocked Up stands out in my mind for a few reasons. It is a little less gimmicky and feels a little more authentic than most comedies. It’s not afraid to get a little serious, and Katherine Heigle’s fine performance is a testament to the fact that comedy can work very well along side serious acting about serious topics. The writing is simply top-notch, with a father-son scene between Harold Ramis and Seth Rogen being one of the most touching moments in a movie I’ve seen in the last ten years. Ultimately Knocked Up is genuinely funny, very sharply written, and just as importantly, it feels like it covers a topic that had not been done very well in a movie for a long time.


Ryan: Number nine on my list is the James Bond reboot, Casino Royale (2006). What's utterly amazing about Casino Royale is that it shouldn't have worked at all. It bucked the successful formula of the previous (and monetarily successful) Bond flicks and the head scratching decision in casting Daniel Craig seemed like a peculiar decision. But the final product exceeded everyone's expectations. In one iconic swoop Craig became this generation's James Bond. His cool performance laced with coldness and detachment not only captured a part of the Bond mystique that was lacking but it also reflects the roughness and uncertainty of our times. Casino Royale succeeds not just as the best pure action movie of the decade but it enhances the mythology (while also deconstructing it) of the Bond franchise in a completely fathomable manner. Casino Royale didn't reinvent the action flick for this decade but it transcends its peers by being an action movie with a legitimate cinematic bravado.






Andy: My number nine goes all the way back to the year 2000, with Kenneth Lonergan’s You Can Count on Me. I’ve always been a sucker for a good, straight-forward drama, and no movie this decade has done it better than You Can Count on Me. The film flew somewhat under the radar as the rookie effort by playwright Kenneth Lonergan (disappointingly, he hasn’t made another until Margaret comes out later this year). The film centers around the relationship between a sister (Laura Linney) and brother (Mark Ruffalo) in a small town in New York. The relationship is complicated, and the two leads, both perfectly cast and doing the best work of their careers so far, are consumed by the tension around it. It is at times uncomfortable to watch it feels so much like real people living out their tragedies in ordinary and complicated ways, that it becomes both depressing and uplifting at the same time. Lonergan framed some tragic and beautiful scenes, while allowing the script and the performances take center stage. This film works so well that one can only hope the wait for Lonergan’s next film has been worth it.




That’s all for the countdown for now, as we will return with another look at a current movie next week before resuming with numbers eight and seven.

"Where the Wild Things Are" Movie Review

This week we take a look at the highly anticipated adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book Where the Wild Things Are (PG). Acclaimed writer Dave Eggars worked on the screenplay, while indie-film darling Spike Jonze directs. The story is of a boy, Max, who runs off from home and ends up in an imaginary land where he is the king of a small band of monsters. Catherine Keener and Max Records star in the film, with voice talent being lent by an ensemble headed by James Gandolfini, Forrest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, and Catherine O’Hara.

Ryan: Most of the time when literature is adapted for the big screen the story gets streamlined to fit the standard running time of most feature films. But when the text of a given work is only ten sentences then what one has is the rare case of a work needing expanded to fit the length of a feature film. That's the case with Where the Wild Things Are. Overall Spike Jonze has delivered a faithful adaptation of Sendak's book, while at the same time expanding the universe and themes of the narrative. But with that said I don't see the movie reaching the same classic status of the children's book.

Andy: Turning a short children’s book into a feature-length film can be bad news for lovers of the book (The Cat in the Hat, The Polar Express), but the team assembled for Where the Wild Things Are is just quirky enough to capture the spirit of the book. There are a few big changes (Max runs off instead of being sent to his room), but most of the difference are surprisingly subtle expansions of what happens after Max sails through the days, month, and year. Make no mistake, there is a lot added that was not in the book, but most of it is ambiguous and atmospheric, adding to the overall mood more than the story.

Ryan: Jonze's fleshing out of the story works to make the book into a successful movie but in doing so it also prevents it from being as iconic as the book. I never thought I would say that a ninety-four minute-long movie is too long but that's exactly what I'm going to say. Where the Wild Things Are, the movie, would have been much more of a stronger film if it was around ten to fifteen minutes shorter. Unfortunately the movie gets ever so slightly bogged down at times and it undermines the imaginative spontaneity of the narrative.

Andy: I’ll agree that the movie was a little longer than it needed to be. The middle portion of the movie drags just a bit, which is definitely funny to say about a movie so short. But there’s nothing wrong with a runtime of 88 minutes or so, especially when your source material is children’s literature. The other major complaint that some may have about the movie is its lack of a clear plot. While this didn’t really bother me, as it seemed to keep with the spirit of the book, I can see how it would be troublesome for many people.

Ryan: Although I didn't find Where the Wild Things Are quite as solid as it could have been it's still a better film than most of the movies that are currently playing. Jones has created a fanciful world that looks incredible on screen. His eye for bringing this film alive is commendable. Also hats off to Max Records for bringing the character of Max alive as well. Making the performance of Max work was no easy task as the character itself, under the wrong hands, could have failed to resonate with moveigoers.

Andy: This movie has grown on me in the few days since I first watched it. The more I think about it, the more I like it. When Max begins to interact with the different monsters, the implication seems to be that these different personas are intended to represent his interpretations of people in his life, or perhaps of his own psyche. This makes the movie a bit of a riddle – the type of riddle that gets better the more you think about it.

Where the Wild Things Are may not be for everybody, but its ominous mood and captivating visuals keep with the spirit of the book enough to earn it a B+.

"Couples Retreat" Movie Review

The latest comedy from Vince Vaughn and company is the romantic comedy, Couples Retreat (PG-13). In the film four couples venture to an all-inclusive resort that specializes in couple therapy. Needless to say hilarity ensues. Rounding out the cast is Kristen Bell, Jason Bateman, Kristin Davis, Malin Ackerman, Faizon Love and John Favreau.

Ryan: It's normally not a good sign when one has to make qualifying statements when describing a movie's value. But that's the case with Couples Retreat. It's just one of those films that if one's in the right mood for then it might satisfy one's tastes. But then again it might not. All in all I found Couples Retreat to be a mediocre rom-com that's entertaining at times but ultimately brings little to the table. I'll defend the film to the point that it is not as bad as many critics were making it out to be but it's certainly far from being a memorable movie as well.

Andy: It is entirely possible that Couples Retreat is the quintessential mediocre romantic comedy. It has four different couples to play around with, while putting them fantastically prefabricated “couples skill building” sessions. What follows is so predictable and cliché-ridden that it is at times tedious. This comes from the writing team that brought you 1996’s Swingers. While that film dealt in clichés as well, it had an urgency and a heart that is sorely lacking in Couples Retreat.


Ryan: What's frustrating about Couples Retreat is that it should have been a better film, especially considering the talent involved. Almost all the main actors involved in the film have had success with either comedies and/or romantic comedies. Consequently one would think that the talent in the movie would produce a strong film. But that's just not the case. The movie is not an outright mess but it lacks polish.

Andy: I agree that there were times where it felt like this could have turned into a much better movie, but it really feels uninspired from the writing right through the performances. It is not horrible. It does have a few pretty good moments. It is a really safe date movie. But it is not interesting, consistent, or funny enough to really be considered a success.

Ryan: Even though this is far from being anyone's best work in the film there were a few laughs in the movie. Vaughn's not on his A-game in the movie but he does deliver a few hits and his banter with Favreau still works. (But make no mistake—this movie is not Swingers or even Made for that matter). The normally solid Bateman doesn't really do a whole lot and it's hard to make any criticism (positive or negative) with the female contingency because they do not have a lot to work with. So what I'm saying is that Vince Vaughn can still make me laugh even in a movie that offers very little else.

Andy: The lack of material for the females does pose a problem as well. The movie is pretty clearly coming from the male point of view, which is fine, but it doesn’t really tell us anything remarkable or new about what it’s like to be a man in a difficult relationship. Instead the movie opts to try to please everyone, and if that’s the goal there should be more depth given to the female characters.

Couples Retreat is a little lazily executed, but could still work as an adequate date movie. Final grade: C-.

Colts Recap Week 5

Another late night televised game. . .another victory. The Colts worked over the woeful Tennessee Titans on Sunday night, 31-9.

The Good:

Peyton Manning continues his MVP season by throwing for his fourth consecutive 300+ yard game. He is just completely locked in. And when he does make a mistake. . .he then goes out and more than makes up for it. He threw a pick in the first quarter and then went on to complete his next14 passes in that first half. Austin Collie continues to gain favor with Manning and I think it's beginning to look like that when Gonzo comes back (and assuming that he's healthy and ready to play) Garcon is going to be the odd man out or maybe more specifically the fourth wide receiver in the rotation. Contrary to popular belief in the national media Gonzo is more comfortable and has had better games when he's on the outside and not in the slot. But anyway Collie is looking great. Hats off to the defense for shutting the Titans and their running game down. I had thought Chris Johnson was going to have a strong day (as I played him in a few fantasy leagues) but he was held in check and I'll take that. It's beginning to look like the Miami game was just a fluke (and I hope that is the case).

The Bad:

As a Colts fan you've come not to expect much from special teams. Basically. . .don't lose the game. Thankfully that didn't happen on Sunday night but there were some cringe worthy moments. When your punt returner calls for a fair catch it's smart not to bump into him as he's trying to catch the ball. And also for some reason our kick return guys like to run into people instead of missing them. I can't even remember the last time a kick or punt was returned for a touchdown. But as far as I'm concerned I'm satisfied with the return game if they just don't turn the ball over.

The Ugly:

Not really much to say here until I read on Monday evening that Peyton's knee was sore (from a cheap shop from Kyle Vanden Bosch). Obviously that's a cause for alarm especially when it's the knee that he had surgery on last year. But Caldwell and Polian didn't see to concerned about it on Monday and the fact that Manning played the rest of the game is a good sign that there's nothing seriously wrong with it.

It looks like the bye is coming at the right time.

"Zombieland" Movie Review

This week we watched the zombie apocalypse comedy Zombieland (R), the first major film from director Ruben Fleicher. Jesse Eisenberg plays the film’s narrator, known simply as Columbus, as he attempts to survive the world after a virus turns everyone into zombies. He eventually teams up with three other survivors, played by Woody Harrelson, Abigail Breslen, and Emma Stone.

Ryan: I'll concede that zombie movies, in general, do not do much for me. Needless to say I didn't have high expectations going into watching Zombieland. Sometimes that's not necessarily a bad thing as Zombieland proved to be a quite entertaining flick. It's not a movie for everyone but it does have broader appeal than the typical zombie movie. It's a good balance of humor, action and horror and the result makes for an amusing film.

Andy: I was also very skeptical of Zombieland. Zombie movies have just about reached the overdone level of vampire movies, so even one that intends to be tongue-in-cheek seemed risky. The risk paid off, as Zombieland is good for reasons that have nothing to do with the zombies. It is clever, fun, and somehow comes across as both surprisingly subtle and richly self-indulgent, sometimes in the same scene. Such contradictions seem like they should weigh the movie down, but in Zombieland the rules are a little different.

Ryan: Zombieland is just one of those genre films that simply works. It's absurd but it stays within the confines of it's own rules and agenda. It doesn't try to say more than it needs to and it doesn't aspire to be anything more than a zombie comedy. I give major props to Ruben Fleischer, the director, for crafting a film that satisfies fans of zombie/ horror comedies as well as those other moviegoers that tend to stay away from those types of movies. He's not reinventing the wheel with the movie but his fresh take on the sub-genre is applaudable.

Andy: You have a pretty good idea of what you are getting into within the first five minutes of the movie. Eisenberg’s voiceover begins to explain his basic survival rules, with each rule appearing on the screen as it comes up. Then the opening credits begin with a series of super-slow motion, meticulously detailed scenes of zombies attacking in every-day life. It is the first of a few well-played scenes of decadent slow-motion throughout the movie, with each scene adding to the movie’s high quality aesthetic.

Ryan: Also in Zombieland's favor is its cast and that starts with Woody Harrelson. I was under the false impression that Harrelson doesn't make many movies anymore, but after scanning his resume I would amend that statement by saying that he doesn't make many relevant movies anymore. What I'm saying is that with the right material, Harrelson can deliver memorable performances and consequently one can strike this performance up in Zombieland as being one of his more notable outings.

Andy: Harrelson does lead the way in the cast of four. His performance is perfectly executed tough-guy bravado, but it is nuanced with a tough of depth that is necessary for any truly great performance. The other three players all do an admirable job, but Zombieland goes nowhere without Harrelson.

Zombieland is an unexpectedly fun and well executed movie that easily earns a B+.