"Precious. . ." Movie Review

With our best-of-the-decade list concluded we are now going to concentrate on potential Oscar hopefuls. First up is the dramatic film Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire ( R). In the film an impoverished pregnant teenage girl (Gabourey “Gabby” Sidibe) seeks a way out of her dead end existence of living with her hateful mother (Mo'Nique) in Harlem in the late '80's. Paula Patton, Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz co-star in the film. Lee Daniels directs.

Ryan: On the heels of being nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Picture for a Drama and the fact that ten movies will be nominated for Best Picture, I feel that it is a safe bet that Precious will be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. It's the kind of intense indie drama that voters like going for. From the performances to the authenticity of the film it's definitely an Oscar worthy picture. I wasn't taken away with it completely (like a lot of critics have been) but I do recognize that it is an excellent movie.

Andy: Precious is a misnamed, or at least ironically named film. The book upon which it is based is called Push, which is a more accurate representation of what the film does. It grabs hold of you and shoves you into situations you’d rather not see, but somehow know you must acknowledge. This movie unapologetically pushes its audience to confront some of the ugliest issues humans confront (incest, abuse, blind selfishness, and basic failings of our society). What’s remarkable is how magnetic the victimized hero, Clarisse Precious Jones, remains throughout all the hardship we see her endure.

Ryan: All the performances in Precious are top notch including those by relative acting newbies like Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz. But there's no question that the two leads in the movie, Sidibe and Mo'Nique completely dominate the film. Mo'Nique has the flashier role but both she and Sidibe give seminal performances. I'm inclined to think that Mo'Nique has a better chance at scoring an Oscar nod simply because her performance is so intensely dramatic. But it is also an effective (and haunting) performance and one that audiences will not soon forget.
Andy: At the heart of what makes Precious work so well is across the board great performances. Gabby Sidibe is an absolute revelation as the title character. In her acting debut she has embodied a character that is complex, mysterious, tragic, and a beautiful ray of humanity in a mostly horrible situation. As her mother and foil, Mo’Nique gives one of the most emotive and threatening performances I’ve ever seen. Both seem likely to get Oscar nominations, and I’d be surprised if Mo’Nique doesn’t end up with the Best Supporting Actress statue. Also giving impressive turns in support are Paula Patton and Mariah Carey.
Ryan: Lee Daniels, the director, does a masterful job in framing the story in a manner that conveys the weighty emotional themes of the movie. His accomplishment is even more remarkable considering how uneasy it is in watching several of the scenes in the movie. But it's also that passion of the story that almost goes too far. Needless so say the trials and tribulations of the lead character, Precious, are almost too much to buy. The unfathomable nature of her burden, while providing the hope of the film, teeters on the edge of absurdity. Nevertheless the film endures this minor shortcoming as one of the year's best.

Andy: Perhaps the biggest flaw with Precious is that it is so intense, from the very first minute until the last, that it is exhausting to watch. That is certainly what director Lee Daniels was attempting, and he achieved it soundly. The problem is that it is very difficult to watch. The fact that it does give an uplifting look at a character that should be completely lost scarcely makes up for the harsh action and implications of the story. However, it is easily one of the most well executed and important movies of the year, and a movie that I strongly recommend.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire resonates long after viewing. Final grade: A-.

Best of the Decade, Part V

This week we conclude our look at the top films of the decade.

Andy: Number two on my list may come as a surprise to some people. 2003’s Lost in Translation (R) stars Bill Murray as an American actor filming a commercial in Japan. He meets a young American woman (Scarlett Johansson) who is experiencing similar emptiness and isolation. What really makes Lost in Translation stand up after repeated viewings is the way the director Sophia Coppola beautifully shoots the Tokyo landscape. Several of the scenes play out with the haunting soundtrack playing over the electric cityscape as the characters wrestle with their loneliness.

Murray gives what is likely the most powerful performance of his storied career. He brings disillusionment and mendacity to his performance that is still tempered with the decades of humor that are lying just underneath his every word, gesture, and look. For her part, Johansson also gives a performance that she’s spent the last seven years unsuccessfully trying to match. Her outward youthful innocence is betrayed by a much deeper restlessness that makes for a very complex performance. But the real star here is Coppola, who coaxes these amazing performances out while making the setting a crucial character in the story.

Ryan: Rounding in at number two on my list is Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood (2000). The movie came in at number three on Andy's list and when he profiled the film he made several key points. One There Will Be Blood is a beautiful film. It's certainly a terrifying beauty but there's no doubt that from a purely aesthetic standpoint There Will Be Blood is one of the most artistically shot films of the decade. Anderson constructs every scene like it's the film's most important scene and that attention to detail sets his movie's apart. Anderson's body of work is top notch but There Will Be Blood clearly shows him at the top of his game.

A second point that Andy alluded to is that There Will Be Blood “does not have much fun about it.” It's not that it's a difficult to film to watch or grasp. But it's a movie with a stark view of human nature. It's not a good-guy versus a bad- guy type film. It's more of a bad guy versus an even worse guy. Paul Dano's character, Eli Sunday is a religious hypocrite and Daniel Day Lewis character, Daniel Plainview, has been seduced by greed. When these two characters interact the results are far from pleasant. Let's just say that the title of the movie is aptly put.

It's impossible to talk about this movie without paying due respect to Daniel Day Lewis. He justifiably earned an Oscar for his performance and I would go even further and argue that it's the best performance of the decade. The power of the performance is that one is still captivated with his character even though he's clearly on a downward spiral into an emotional emptiness. One can't take his eyes off of him. It's a transcendent performance that makes There Will Be Blood a truly memorable film.

Andy: My number one movie of the decade is 2004’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (R). One thing that propels this movie to the top of my list is the fact that I have probably seen this movie four times in the past six years, and it continues to get better with each viewing. The complex plot structure, written by Charlie Kaufman, the best screenwriter of the decade, is a key element of the movie’s success. A couple (Jim Cary and Kate Winslet) who have their memories erased after a bad break up. We see the love story in reverse, as the two try to piece together the shadow of memories that exist.

Part of what makes it work is the superb supporting cast that includes Tom Wilkenson, Mark Ruffalo, Kirsten Dunst, and Elijah Wood. All put in great performances, but the real stars here are the leads. Jim Cary has always been vastly underrated as a serious actor, and this is the best performance he’s ever given. Not to be outdone, the best actress of the decade, Kate Winslet, absolutely owns her performance. Director Michael Gondry pieces it all together in a movie that is entertaining, uplifting, tragic, and interesting all at once. For my money, it’s the closest this decade came to movie perfection.

Ryan: In this modern media age when one is a movie lover one can't help but to get geared up for new releases. It's almost always the case that one goes into just about every movie with a certain set of expectations. Unfortunately more times than not those expectations are not entirely met. But every so often a movie meets those expectations and sometimes--in those rare instances--a film will even surpass those conceptualized notions. And when that happens one knows that they have a true gem on their hands. With that said, my number one film of the decade is Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (2008).

This revelation might not surprise some people. Being a life-long Batman fan certainly does call into question my objectivity. But I feel confident--as a fan and as a critic--to label The Dark Knight as the film of the decade. Nolan's take on Batman (and that includes Batman Begins as well) is the definitive cinematic take of the Caped Crusader. As a Batman aficionado I can positively say that those movies brought to life in the most authentic manner the Batman mythos.

But I can also take a step back from fandom and see why The Dark Knight became such a cultural phenomenon. Not only is it an extremely well made film that is highlighted by the iconic performance of Heath Ledger (as the Joker) but it captured the zeitgeist of the nation upon it's release in the summer of 2008. The themes in The Dark Knight of good versus evil is as timeless as it gets but there was something so contemporary with it's manifestation of the battle that it instinctively struck the right chord with moviegoers. In an uncertain time while facing an unexplainable evil, an incorruptible yet ruthless hero was needed. Batman personified the type of hero that audiences were looking for. In this decade comic book movies dominated cineplexes but the relevant escapism of The Dark Knight propelled it to top of my list.

Now that our lists are complete, we will begin to look at this year’s Oscar hopefuls starting next week.

Best of the Decade, part IV

This week we move one step closer to our top films of the decade as we check in with our numbers four and three movies.

Ryan: Coming in at number four on my list is Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous (2000) (It was number seven on Andy's list). The semi-autobiographical tale details a young rock journalist profiling (the fictitious) band Stillwater in the 1970's. The film stars Patrick Fugit, Kate Hudson, Billy Cruddup and Jason Lee.

For me the success or failure of most movies depend on this simple maxim—does the film work? In my view Almost Famous is a prime textbook example of when all areas of the filmmaking process work to create a memorable film. From the direction, to the screenwriting, to the acting, to the tone of the film Almost Famous is simply a movie that works. While it's a film of technical brilliance it's also one of those movies that is pure joy to watch over-and-over as well. It's a movie that never gets old watching and every repeated viewing reveals a new wrinkle to the coming-of-age story.

Almost Famous also resonates as a memorable movie for those moviegoers that are music lovers as well. Not only does it document the mid 70's music scene but it parallels the growth and maturity of a rock band with that of a teenage music reporter all the while set to memorable musically inspired scenes. Even the songs that were strictly written for the film (by Peter Frampton, Crowe and his wife, Nancy Wilson) help to solidify the credibility of the movie. There definitely was a concerted effort by Crowe and his company to make an authentic film—not just from a narrative standpoint—but from an emotional standpoint as well.

Andy: My number four is the John Cusack hipster rom-com High Fidelity (Ryan’s number eight). Released back in 2000 just three months into the decade, High Fidelity tapped an indie-mainstream crossover audience that would help carry many films in the subsequent years.

Two things really make this film work. One is the amazing soundtrack, which adequately bounces between cool and comfortable in a way that is a must for a movie that takes place largely inside an independent record store. The other is the superb performance from an ensemble cast that includes great turns by Jack Black, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Joan Cusack, and Tim Robbins among others. Heading the list of performances is John Cusack, giving the best in his well documented career. His self-referential, speaking into the camera narration could have ruined the movie. Instead, it carries the audience along through an ugly break-up that is somehow funny and awkward at the same time. It is not flashy, and it is not grand, but High Fidelity is as near to flawless as date movies got in the past ten years.

Ryan: Number three on my list is another film that Andy included on his list (at number six). Up (2009) tells the fantastic story of an amazing journey involving two polar opposite individuals—78-year-old widow Carl Frederickson and Russel an 8 year-old aspiring Wilderness Explorer.
Initially Up looked like the film that might derail Pixar's wildly successful (both critically and commercially) ascending track record. The simplicity of the title and of the initial look of the movie just didn't spark my interest. But sometimes it's those simple concepts that are executed in beautiful manner that make for the most lasting impact. Up is a wonderful film that's emotionally rich both from a comedic and dramatic standpoint. In fact the montage scene at the beginning of the movie is the most emotionally textured scene of the decade and it's executed in a flawless manner.

I feel very comfortable having Up as three on my list and it resides there on it's own merit but I would be remiss if I didn't find myself looking at that high ranking as a symbol for Pixar's dominance of the decade. Pixar's movies have always been good but in this decade they progressively became great (Finding Nemo and The Incredibles) to artistic works of art (Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up). I only had one Pixar film on my list but there's no question that Ratatouille and WALL-E were knocking at the door. I don't think there's any grand secret to Pixar's success. There will always be a market for great storytelling and Pixar does it better than anyone else in the business.

Andy: Coming in at number three on my list is 2008’s There Will Be Blood. I remember being overwhelmed at the intensity of the movie when I first saw it, with the violent twists, jarring score, and flash-forward ending leaving me almost as unsettled as I was impressed. But upon a second viewing, There Will Be Blood proves to be complex, terrifying, and beautiful. Daniel Day-Lewis gives one of the performances of the decade as Daniel Plainview, a California oil man who will stop at nothing in order to succeed. With each success we see Plainview grow a little more evil. And to watch Day-Lewis make those leaps is to watch an actor at the peak of his craft.
There Will Be Blood is essentially a character study, but it does so much more than follow the life of one man. It can be read as an allegory foreshadowing the darkest side of capitalism in the 20th century, particularly in the field of fossil fuels. It is also technically appealing, with some of the most beautifully crafted shots of the decade, made all the more intriguing by the menacing story they are telling. Much credit goes to P.T. Anderson, whose only other movie of the decade, Punch Drunk Love, is widely underappreciated. There Will Be Blood does not have much fun about it, but it is movie making at just about the highest level that anyone reached this decade, and it is easy to imagine that time will only make it more poignant.



Next week we will finish off our decade review with our number two and number one movies.

Best of Decade, Part III

This week we continue our look at the films of the decade with numbers 6 and 5 on our lists.

Ryan: When people say they don't make them (movies) like they used to they almost exclusively are referring to the golden age of Hollywood. But that mantra could also be applied to other film eras-- more specifically the anti-hero morality tales of the '70's that helped to define that decade. Michael Clayton (2007), which comes in at number six on my list, plays like one of those classic films from the '70's. In the film George Clooney stars as a “fix-it” lawyer on the cusp of a mental breakdown. He's a broken man who reluctantly gets drawn into a class-action lawsuit against a corporate chemical company but along the way and he's provided the opportunity for moral redemption.

On the surface Michael Clayton is a smart legal thriller but upon repeated viewings it becomes clear--that for what it sets out to be--that it is the most perfectly executed film of the decade. It is technically—from the direction, to the screenplay, to the acting—as flawless of a film that somebody is going to find in this decade. (It only comes in at number six on my list mainly because I just happen to like better the other movies on my list). The film also transcends it's genre by delving into issues of the decade. The tagline of the film, “The Truth Can Be Adjusted,” unfortunately defines much of the national political leadership of this decade and the notion of an evil greedy corporation resonates with the economic uncertainty that has gripped this era. I'll concede that on the literal level Michael Clayton doesn't have the scope of a truly great movie but ultimately it resonates with a perfect blend of timely and classic themes that are executed in a brilliant manner.

Andy: I’m admittedly leaning pretty heavily on the early part of the decade on my list, but one movie I saw this year has resonated strongly enough in the five months since I’ve seen it to check in at number six on my list is Up. The Pixar films dominated the animated scene in the decade. Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and WALL-E are all outstanding films. Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo are already classics, but as the decade has worn on the Pixar films seemed to become as much about making a good, interesting movie as they were about being appealing to kids. They have managed to make sophisticated movies that are about things kids enjoy watching. The culmination of this is the film Up.

Upon watching Up you know after the masterful first fifteen minutes that this is not going to be like an ordinary children’s movie. An almost completely dialogue free trip through the entire life of the unlikely hero, Carl Frederickson, the start of the movie is some of the best story development I’ve ever seen. By the time the movie really gets going, you know everything important to this man. It seems like it should be a cheap literary trick, but it is executed so beautifully that you don’t care, you just want to make sure your watching when things work out for this guy.


Ryan: Number five on my list is a film that made Andy's list a few weeks ago. Sideways (2004), directed by Alexander Payne, details two best friends (Paul Giamatti and Thomas Hayden Church) on a bachelor party journey in Southern California wine country. During their venture they come across two single women (Virginia Madsen and Sandra Oh).

On Andy's write up he alludes to the fact that he's not a fan of fine wine but that he was nonetheless completely drawn into the story even though the movie centers around people who love wine. I completely agree with that assessment. I'm not into the wine scene but Sidways is such a well-done film that in the end it doesn't really matter if one is into wine or not.
I was also struck, upon re-watching it, with how generationally specific the film is. The movie is basically about four adults having midlife crises and thus one might assume that the movie might not have that strong of an appeal to a younger audience. But that couldn't be further from the truth. Again this film is such a strong movie (with its themes of finding oneself and finding love) that ultimately it resonates with any audience willing to give it a chance.

Alexander Payne deserves loads of credit for crafting (directing and adapting the screenplay) a film that only gets better with age. It should also be pointed out that Sideways contains four career defining performances for its leads. None of the performances won an Oscar (only Church and Madsen were even nominated) but that does not factor in at all when evaluating these performances. In fact I would say that the performances—especially Giamatti's and Madsen's—are two of the most authentic, heartfelt performances of the decade.

Andy: For my number five film, I’m looking at last year’s The Dark Knight. Repeated viewings have me convinced that it is easily the best film in the Batman franchise. It is also the most lasting film from 2008, highlighting how ridiculous it is that the movie was not even nominated for best picture. Also of note, this is the best film from director Christopher Nolen, who was quite possibly the director of the decade (Momento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, and The Prestige are his other efforts) in spite of never being nominated for best director.

It’s appropriate to talk about how Nolen’s script (co-written with his brother Jonathan) is one of the best action film scripts of the decade. Or how Christian Bale solidified himself as both the definitive Batman and Bruce Wayne. Or even how, in spite of being a movie about a superhero, it felt and still feels culturally relevant. But everyone knows that this movie achieves greatness because of the transcendent and terrifying portrayal of the Joker by Heath Ledger. Even if he had not died before the movie came out, Ledger’s Joker would have likely been the most iconic movie character of the decade. But viewing it with the knowledge that this was the brilliant end to a short and impressive career makes it all the more tragic and compelling. The Dark Knight is a very good movie by any measure, but Ledger’s performance ensures that it will be remembered as a great movie.

"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+.

Colts game 4 recap

I had a little different perspective with this game as I attended it with The Big A. With an open roof and great seats it was a perfect day for some football. And the Colts delivered in a big way with a rousing 34-17 win over the Seattle Seahawks.

The Good:

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record but how can one not start with Peyton Manning. This was his fourth consecutive 300 yard passing game and he is simply locked in. He's spreading the ball around. . .and getting comfortable with the new guy's. Pierre Garcon had a couple more big catches and Austin Collie grabbed a highlight worthy touchdown at the end of the first half. The running game again seemed competent and the defense (for the most part) held Seattle in check. I did not expect to see Dwight Freeney on the field (with his strained quad) but not only did he play but he had a sack and a couple more quarterback pressures. I'm not convinced that it was a good idea to play him but I guess if he's capable of playing than one should play him.

The Bad:

Again not much to say here. Special teams allowed Seattle to get an on-side kick (in the fourth quarter) and the defense let the Seattle offense score a few late touchdowns. I wasn't too concerned because it was basically garbage time but if I were to be critical I guess it would be nice to not have a let up at all but that's going to happen.

The (not so) Ugly:

Edgerrin James returned to Indy for the first time since he and the Colts parted ways. Most people realize, including the parties involved, that the decision to release James didn't surprise anyone when it did happen in 2006. I thought it was class act by the Colts organization to publicly recognize--during the game with a video montage--James's contribution to the Colts. I know I was on my feet cheering for James. It was cool that James reciprocated the gesture by acknowledging the crowd and their cheers. As the screen proclaimed, James will one day be in the Colts Ring of Honor (and on a separate subject. . .the Hall of Fame as well).

"The Informant!" Movie Review

Steven Soderbergh’s latest film is the comical farce, The Informant! (R). Based on actual events, Matt Damon stars as a VP of an agricultural business who creates quite a mess involving his company and the FBI. Melanie Lyndskey, Scott Bakula and Joel McHale co-star in the movie.

Ryan: The Informant is one of those movies that isn’t necessarily going to blow moviegoers away but it is a well-made movie that is genuinely entertaining. It’s a film —and I don’t mean this in a negative way—that has the feel of a made-for-TV-movie so consequently it’s a movie with a low-key sensibility. It isn’t flashy but it’s a well-told story presented in a satisfying manner.

Andy: The made-for-TV-movie comparison is an apt one, but it should be clear that this is done intentionally. Soderbergh is still one of the most talented directors out there, and he definitely gives the film a goofy feel that helps paint our image of Damon’s character. What may turn off some moviegoers is that the movie isn’t consistently laugh-out-loud funny even though it plays like a comedy. That dance between serious subject matter and comedic attitude can leave the audience unsure of how they should feel.

Ryan: Steven Soderbergh has had an interesting career since scoring his Oscar for 2000’s Traffic. Soderbergh has always done his own thing but in this decade he’s made an even more concerted effort to make the kind of films that he wants to make. His efforts have included some misses (Full Frontal and The Good German) but there’s no denying that he’s still one of the more talented filmmakers currently working. If anything, The Informant shows that Soderbergh can take a literal, unconventional story and create a movie that fits the atypical tone of the story and of the characters involved.

Andy: Not surprisingly, Matt Damon does an outstanding job as the goofy, deceptive lead character. Much has been made about his weight gain and mustache for this role, but it’s really all about his earnest mixture of intelligence, ability, and naivety that propels the character and therefore the entire movie. I found the movie interesting and entertaining, but without Damon’s performance it would have been neither of these things.

Ryan: Matt Damon really pulls off an impressive performance in this movie. At the core, the character that Damon plays is quite despicable. But he plays him with such an oblivious charm that one is drawn to him to the degree that one just wants to see what his character will do next. His character does so many asinine things in the film that it’s hard to not keep interested in his next move. Props to Damon for adding a degree of comedy to his resume.

Andy: Another intriguing aspect of the movie is that it is in some ways a period piece. The movie takes place in the mid 1990s, a time that is still fresh in America’s conscience, even though it is now 15 years ago. Seeing the sinister nature of the corporate culture and the flailing attempts of the FBI to get a handle on it are at times amusing, but it also forces us to ask ourselves if any of that has changed in the past 15 years.

The Informant! is a well crafted movie that does not wow the audience, but does adequately entertain. Final grade: B.

Colts Week 3 Recap

On Sunday night the Colts dominated the Arizona Cardinals defeating them 31-10. It was a slow starting game and it looked like the Cardinals were going to go up 10-0 in the first quarter. . .and then all of sudden it was 21-3 and the Colts were in control.

The Good:

Where does one start. This was the Colts best all around effort to date for the season. The offense sputtered at first (and that was disconcerting) but like I mentioned earlier they got their act together and before one knew it. . .they had an eighteen point lead. Manning was at the top of his game and I liked how they sped up the no-huddle in the second quarter. That really caught Arizona off guard and seemed to get the offense rolling. Reggie Wayne proved once again that he's an elite WR in the league. Dallas was being Dallas. But furthermore. . .It's promising that Garcon is proving to be a player that can make big plays. He did get caught up in the moment but I don't think having a little flair is all that bad. I don't see him going all TO on us.

On the other side of the ball the defense looked entirely better than the previous week. I had thought this, but did not express it to anyone, but I felt that the way Arizona's offense works suits the Colts defense. They don't run the ball (actually worse than we are). Kurt Warner is an immobile QB and they like big pass plays. And the thing about big pass plays is that they take a while to develop and with our pass rush that is something that our defense can exploit. I just thought Freeney and Mathis and company did a superb job of getting in Warner's head, both literally and figuratively. This was a vintage Colts game. Manning and the offense get a big lead and the defense does it's job to get after the quarterback.

The Bad:

When one hears something pop in their leg, that is not a good sign. And when one is an elite pass rushing defensive end, that's an even worse sign. As of this post, there's no official status update of Dwight Freeney (who left the game with a leg injury) but I think it's safe to say that he's going to miss some time. And there's no easy way to say this. . .but that sucks.


The (not so) Ugly:

The Colts actually had some success running ball. As a team they actually had over a hundred yards rushing. . .126 to be exact. That's definitely a good sign for the offense. . .the offensive line . . .and for Addai and Brown. As one can see that opened up the offense to their full back of tricks.

"Extract" Movie Review

As Hollywood enters a down period, we take a look at the new Mike Judge film, Extract (R). Jason Bateman stars as an extract factory owner who is having trouble connecting with his wife (Kristin Wiig), so he confides in his bartender friend (Ben Affleck) while lusting after a new temp (Mila Kunis) in his factory.

Ryan: Extract is Mike Judge’s third feature film. His first movie Office Space evolved into a comedic classic while his second movie, Idiocracy left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately Extract is more Idiocracy than Office Space. Regrettably those people hoping for a comedy on the same high level of Office Space are going to be disappointed. At its best Extract is simply a mediocre movie.

Andy: In all fairness, it would do well to remember that Office Space was not very highly regarded until over a year after its original release. That said, it seems unlikely that Extract will ever live up to that level. It is in the same spirit as Office Space, as the scenes inside the factory resonate with anyone who has ever worked in that environment. Unfortunately, those scenes are only scattered throughout the film. That would be fine if the rest of the movie was compelling, but it’s not. The result is a mediocre movie that had potential to make a lasting impact while being legitimately funny.

Ryan: Extract is an uneventful movie. It doesn’t take a lot of analysis to figure out why. It’s boring. It’s a ninety-minute movie that feels like a two and a half hour long marathon. There are a few funny moments but overall the movie fails to generate consistent laughs on any level. It’s not a train wreck of a movie, like this summer’s Year One, but it certainly fails to deliver the laughs and social commentary that Judge has captured in the past with some of his work.

Andy: While there are certainly too many down moments of Extract, I think it’s a little unfair to say that it feels like two and a half hours. The major problem is that none of the characters are dynamic enough to capture the attention of the audience. Bateman’s character is the only one based in reality enough for us to relate to, and he ends up being, literally, too boring to root for. The other characters are extremely ridiculous, which does translate to some laughs, but not enough to make up for the lack of a connection.

Ryan: Extract is also one of those movies that is a missed opportunity. The cast that was assembled for this movie had the chops to deliver a strong comedic film. Unfortunately their talents are wasted. I don't assess much of the blame to the cast members because they didn't have much to work with. But it's also true that nobody rises above the material either. No matter how one looks at it Extract is an all-around lackluster effort.

Andy: Extract has an impressive cast that fails to impress. Ben Affleck seems to be having fun playing his role as a drug obsessed bartender, but his character does little for the movie. Kristen Wiig is solid but underused. The real highlight is, of all people, Gene Simmons, whose turn as a back-of-the-phone-book injury attorney is outstanding. Simmons is quite funny, but his character, by design, is barely in the movie. That leaves a lot of laughter-free time that is hard to overcome.

Extract is a comedy that fails to consistently make the audience laugh. Final grade: C.

Colts recap Week 2

I was going to do this last week but dropped the ball.

The Colts beat the Dolphins last night on Monday Night Football, 27-23. Needless to say it was a pretty exciting, nail-biting game. With that said. . .here's my good, bad and ugly takes of the game.

The Good:

Peyton Manning. His numbers aren't as sexy as some other quarterbacks this year (Drew Brees) but I'm beating the drum for Manning's MVP case already. He just gets it done. The offense was not without its faults (to many three-outs) but when they had to score they did. It's mind blowing to think that we only had the ball for less than 15 minutes (14:53 to be exact) and not only were in the the game but won the game. It defies logic.

Dallas Clark: Simply one of the best tight ends in the game. That opening play was a thing of beauty.

The Bad:

Three and Outs: The Colts simply cannot live with three and outs. I'm not saying they should score every time they have the ball but they have to at the very least get a first down or too. The bend but don't break defense still seems to be what the Colts are so the offense has to give the defense a break. Additionally. . .it happened last year and I was hoping that it would end this year but the Colts offense sputters at times and that's just not something that the Colts can afford to do if they plan on making a deep playoff run.

The Ugly:

I don't want to rip the defense because the effort was there and they stepped up when they had too (although Miami looked pretty inept at running the two minute drill) but the defense has to do something on third down. Miami was 15 of 21 on third downs. That is simply unacceptable. I know the Colts won the game but that's playing with fire to continue that trend. And it's not just the Colts run defense. I don't know how many times Pennington hit Ted Ginn on third down conversions. The soft coverage is just nauseating to watch. I don't want to get to down on them to much because the defensive unit played so well last week but. . .man. . .somebody needs to make a play on third down.

It's cliche to say but a win is a win. So I'll take it.

Reenactment of Stokley's TD Catch

"(500) Days of Summer" Movie Review

We close out the summer movie season with the unconventional indie romance movie, (500) Days of Summer (PG-13). In the film Joseph Gordon-Levitt falls hard for the new girl in the office (Zooey Deschanel). Unfortunately her feelings are not fully reciprocated and they struggle to find common ground with their budding romantic relationship. Marc Webb directs.

Ryan: (500) Days of Summer is a really good movie. It’s not a typical romantic comedy (light-hearted and whimsical) and in fact it’s not really a typical indie romance either (dark and angst ridden). It strikes a suitable balance between those polar opposites and the result is a film that is genuinely entertaining and has a little bit of depth to it as well. (500) Days of Summer is definitely one of the highlights of not only the summer but the year as well.

Andy: One of the aspects of (500) Days of Summer that makes it such an interesting movie is the mixed up narrative structure. Rather than presenting a linear romance, the audience is shown the relationship in all of its different stages right from the beginning. This allows us to focus on how the characters are behaving rather than getting lost in arc of the relationship. It highlights the emotion of individual moments rather than the culmination of their feelings. The technique probably turns off some viewers, but I found it to be an inventive way to have a character study of a guy messing up a relationship.

Ryan: Major props should go out to the director, Marc Webb, for crafting such a delightful movie. The ideas of true love, love at first sight and finding one’s soul mate are as old as storytelling itself. The brilliance with the movie is how it takes these familiar (arguably clichéd notions) and presents them in a way that feels fresh, that feels contemporary and that feels relevant. Further enhancing the story is how Webb chooses to film the movie in a non-linear fashion thus adding a sense of emotional resonance that would have been lacking by telling the story in a traditional straightforward manner.

Andy: Another possible pitfall for viewers is the lack of development of Zooey Deschanel’s character. It is true that she comes across as a little shallow, but that is part of the point. The male version of the relationship is all we are seeing, and that is a self-important and selfish view of the relationship that keeps the audience from ever really getting to know the woman. That ultimately dooms the relationship, and is a major part of the whole point of the movie.

Ryan: (500) Days of Summer provides a breakthrough role for Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Gordan-Levitt plays the part with a believable sense of vulnerability and charm that vividly shows up on screen. It would not be out-of-the-question to add him to the short list with Michael Cera and Jessie Eisenberg as up-and-coming leading men. Not to be out-done is the performance by Zooey Deschanel. The role is tailored made for her but one still has to hit the right notes with the performance. But rest assured, she delivers a credible performance.

Andy: There is no doubt that Gordon-Levitt carries this movie. His character acts despicably for large portions of the movie, yet he has a cool charm that makes him likeable even as we pity the mess he’s made of his relationship. As an actor, he pulls this off in a way that not many young leading men could or would. It is a treat to see him perform here. Deschanel also does a nice job, but so much of her character must be more cute than complex (or at least as we see her through Gordon-Levitt’s eyes) that it’s hard to give her credit beyond knowing the limitations of her character.

(500) Days of Summer is interesting as a romantic comedy that is neither consistently romantic nor comedic, yet it still interesting and entertaining. Final grade: A-.

News Flash. . .The Beatles Rule.

With the onset of Beatles Rock Band hitting stores in a few days, a varying degree of Beatlemania has once again moved to the forefront.

--Rolling Stone Magazine has interesting take on why The Beatles really broke up.

--And the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly also has The Beatles on the cover and also attempts to rank the 50 Best Beatles tunes of all-time.

So since I love The Beatles (and lists for that matter) that's where this post is going.


It's interesting and telling that EW's list goes all the way to 50 in coming up with the best Beatles songs. That speaks to the quantity and quality of their music. Think about other classic rock bands and their respected catalogs in coming up with a list of their 50 greatest songs. After about 20-25 songs the list becomes interchangeable and negligible. But not with The Beatles.

Just look at the songs that didn't even make their cut. . .Two of Us, The Fool on the Hill, Mother Nature's Son, Fixing a Hole, No Reply, Any Time at All, Things We Said Today, I've Just Seen a Face, Don't Let Me Down, Yes It Is, The Inner Light, Here There and Everywhere, And Your Bird Can Sing, For No One, I'm Looking Through You, It's All Too Much. . .it just goes on and on.

I'm not going to be overly critical of the list because it's tough. I've attempted to come up with my favorite 10. . .20. . .50. . .Beatles songs and it's no easy task. And when it comes to ranking them. . .it becomes even more difficult. I do completely empathize with the writers of the EW article. It's almost too much of an endeavor. It really just makes your brain hurt.

That's why The Beatles are second to none.

"Taking Woodstock" Movie Review

This week we take a look at director Ang Lee’s film Taking Woodstock (R). Demetri Martin stars as a small town man with big plans for his parents’ motel in 1969 upstate New York. When the opportunity to host the music festival Woodstock presents itself, he takes it. Emile Hirsch and Eugene Levy costar.


Ryan: Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock is an interesting take on a subject most people are familiar with. I give Lee credit (because it was risky) for putting the iconic concert as the backdrop for an intimate look at a coming-of-age story. At the onset Lee does a strong job in setting up the conflict of the main character not only within himself but in dealing with the drama of trying to pull off a concert as ambitious as Woodstock. Unfortunately Taking Woodstock meanders through its second hour and struggles at the end to generate a satisfying conclusion. It's not a bad film but it's certainly not a memorable film either.

Andy: The risk of basing a movie around Woodstock without actually showing any of the concert is a risk that ultimately doesn’t pay off. The film is entirely about Martin’s character and his struggles with his parents and his ambitions. The fact that the concert is an ancillary piece of the story is both awkward and partly responsible for the film’s lacking heart. Something is missing from this movie, and the fact that the concert itself was somewhat ignored has to be considered a factor in that.

Ryan: Again I admire, from a cinematic standpoint, how Lee put the actual concert on the back burner and focused on the struggles of the main character and his family. But with that said, a movie even with Woodstock in the background, still needs the music of the historical concert to be an important factor. The legacy of Woodstock extends far beyond the music but a film with Woodstock in its title needs to have the music as more than just an afterthought. It's almost like the filmmakers went too far in the other direction in stating that this isn't a typical Woodstock-inspired film. Consequently it doesn't work.

Andy: Taking Woodstock is somewhat entertaining, but it is also lacking in many areas. One of thos areas is the performance of the lead, Demetri Martin. I am a pretty big fan of Martin’s television show Important Things. I think it is a brand of comedy that is different from anything else on TV right now, and I was excited to see how he did on the big screen. Unfortunately, he left a lot to be desired. His characters is absolutely central to the success of the movie, and the performance does not have enough gravitas to really bring the audience in.

Ryan: There seems to be a tragic flaw among a great many of today's talented filmmakers. More-often- than-not a good or even great film suffers from a puzzling climax and/or resolution. Taking Woodstock is a prime example of this. The first act and a half is well established but the movie falters in reaching its narrative climax and conclusion. Furthering exacerbating that problem is how the movie stumbles into familiar sixties cliches and narrative sequences. The original premise of the film is not so unique by the end of the picture.

Andy: Ang Lee is a very accomplished director, but he has had misses in the past (2003’s Hulk, for example). This movie is a bit of a departure for Lee, but the exploration did not result in a very high quality movie. Taking Woodstock is not bad, but for the talent involved it seems poorly executed and at times even tedious. I would anticipate Lee bouncing back with something more rich and innovative for his next project.

Taking Woodstock was an interesting idea that turned into a mediocre movie. Final grade: C.