"Doubt" Movie Review

This week we continue to look at Oscar hopefuls by watching Doubt (PG-13), writer/direct Sean Patrick Shanley’s study of alleged abuse in a catholic middle school in the sixties. The all-star cast includes Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis.

Andy: Doubt is based on Shanley’s play of the same name, and it feels very much like a play, even on the silver screen. The film is very dialogue driven, with very little variation in location. Because of the lack of cinematic elements, the film allows the actors and the content to shine. The themes the movie addresses (religion, abuse, teacher relationships with parents and students) are intense and complex. At the very least, Doubt does a wonderful job of stimulating thought and discussion on these topics.


Ryan: I think it should be pointed out that although Doubt centers on an alleged case of abuse the movie is really not about the specifics of that alleged action. More to the point, the movie centers on a power struggle between a nun and priest and deals with issues of faith involving certainty and doubt. The movie showcases some remarkable performances and it’s those performances that make Doubt worth watching. The movie is nothing cinematically special but it’s a solid piece of work.

Andy: Doubt is really highlighted the performances of the actors involved. Streep is a consummate professional, and she is in top form in this movie. I take issue with some of her choices (especially the very end of the film), but there is no denying that she is likely to get nominated for yet another Oscar here. Similarly, Philip Seymour Hoffman is his reliably remarkable self, balancing affability with a hint of creepiness.


Ryan: The movie itself falls short in being Best Picture material but it contains several Oscar worthy performances. The scenes between Streep and Hoffman are reason enough to watch the movie as they are both in stride with regard to their performances. I would say that they are both locks for a nomination. I was also impressed with both Amy Adams and Viola Davis and I believe one of them will score a nomination for Best Supporting Actress.

Andy: The supporting acting is every bit as strong in Doubt as the leads are, with both Amy Adams and Viola Davis doing an outstanding job. Davis’s performance may be the most impressive, as she only has one scene, but completely steals it from Meryl Streep. With four performances at such high quality, it is hard to imagine Doubt not having multiple Oscar nominations.


Ryan: One would think that a film with four Oscar worthy performances would be a slam dunk of a film but Doubt has its issues. Like I said before, cinematically, the movie doesn't showcase anything that sets it apart from the stage version. Sometimes plays just work better as plays. But even with that said Doubt resonates as an intimate yet intense look at the question of ascertaining truth based more on faith than on facts.

Doubt features several performances that carry it to a respectable B+.

Tony Dungy to retire

Word is coming out that Tony Dungy will announce his retirement from coaching the Colts at a 5:00 press conference.

I tip my hat to Tony Dungy. I know there's been a fair share of playoff failures (and more on this later) but he delivered a Super Bowl in 2006 and he also brought a level of consistency and excellence to a franchise that was going nowhere (and had been going nowhere).

He's a hall of fame football coach but more importantly his impact stretches beyond his football accomplishments. Not to anoint him to sainthood or anything but there's a lot of dopes in the sporting world...and it was refreshing and inspiring to see Dungy do things the "right" way.

Another look at "Gone Baby Gone"

The other night Jenny watched for the first (and I for a second) time the Ben Affleck directed, Gone Baby Gone. I really liked the movie when I watched it last year and I thought it was one of the better films of the year.

By the way one probably shouldn’t read any further if you haven’t seen the movie.

But anyway the film’s ending is still intriguing to me. Those that have seen the movie know what I’m talking about…that basically Casey Affleck’s character had to make a difficult choice regarding what to do with the kidnapped girl.

I think it’s clear—and the movie does (I believe) ultimately take this position-- that Affleck’s character made the “right” choice. You can’t condone people of authority kidnapping a little girl because she has a questionable mother (played by Amy Ryan). And that’s not even factoring in the murders that were committed to cover up the crime. Basically the ends don’t justify the means with regard to what Morgan Freeman and his cronies (Ed Harris and Co.) attempted.

But I do thinks it’s intriguing to look at it from the other angle. More to the point I would argue (and maybe I’m being more Devil’s Advocate than anything) that I’m not entirely convinced that Affleck’s decision was completely selfless and/or was he really putting the girl’s best interest first?

Why I’m questioning Affleck’s motivation is two-fold. One he says (and I’m summarizing here) that he couldn’t live with himself if later on his life he would admit to the kidnapped girl (Amanda) that he did nothing when he had the opportunity to return her to her rightful mother. It seems to me that one reason he’s choosing to do what he does is to satisfy his own future guilt. In that regard, it doesn’t seem to me that Affleck is making his decision solely on what is best for the girl. He’s factoring in his own desires (even though they might seem to be admirable).

Secondly, its clear-- by the way the movie ended--that Affleck is going to have a presence in Amanda’s life. I don’t think that is a bad thing—especially considering how ridiculous Amanda’s mother is. But again is he being slightly self-serving by inserting himself into Amanda’s life? What exactly is his motive? Is it to just be a positive presence in Amanda’s life or is he satisfying some need in himself to be her hero…or her father-like figure. Surely in some way he recognizes that Ryan is not a great mother so in some small regard he’s slightly similar to Freeman’s character in that they both see the need for themselves to intervene for Amanda’s behalf. Granted it’s not to the same level of ridiculousness…but there are some few parallels. Basically if Affleck sees himself of some sort of guardian for Amanda than that surely factored in his decision to do what he did…and thus it’s arguable that he put his own desires into the decision. Again…was his choice completely selfless and solely based on Amanda’s best interest?

It doesn’t take much of a leap to assume (and it is an assumption) that Amanda would have a better (at least more secure and caring) home with the characters played by Morgan Freeman and his wife than with her own mother. Of course this was also the position shared by Affleck’s girlfriend in the movie (played by Michelle Monaghan). If the movie existed in more of a vacuum (where all the crazy stuff didn’t happen) than I believe it would have been a harder decision for Affleck to make and it would have been more difficult to buy that the girl is truly better off with her biological mother than with her potential “adopted” parents. We do authorize the state to make those calls (removing kids from their parents) but we frown on it (and justifiable so) when individuals take it upon themselves to do it.

The existential dilemma that faces Affleck’s character is just so intriguing. I just find it fascinating in examining the motives behind his decision. And I'm not really sure if his decision had to be selfless but in examining his decision one can see that his choice did factor in some of his own wishes and thoughts.

But anyway...that's all for now.

"Watchmen" Japanese trailer

Here's the Japanese trailer for the Watchmen movie. It has snippets of a few scenes not seen in the American version.

Now let's just hope that Warner Bros and Fox can work their issues out because I don't want the film to get delayed from it's March opening.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" Movie Review

After a brief hiatus thanks to the holidays we are back with a new review. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (PG-13) stars Brad Pitt as the title character who inexplicably ages backwards. Needless to say drama ensues. Cate Blanchett and Julia Ormond co-star and David Fincher directs.

Ryan: Although The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is getting tremendous best picture buzz it’s not best picture material. The movie boasts some of the best special effects that one will ever see in film but the bottom line is that it’s only a good film and not a great film. There are several really well executed scenes and the performances by the two leads are noteworthy. But the movie has several flaws that prevent it from being an instant classic.

Andy: Benjamin Button has the feel of on Oscar movie. It has a sweeping, epic narrative (and runtime), it has big name actors playing life-long roles. It has historic qualities coupled with intensely personal themes. The story is even based off a work of one of America ’s most beloved authors, F. Scott Fitzgerald. Unfortunately having the ingredients for an Oscar doesn’t mean that it deserves consideration. Even though it has some very strong points, Benjamin Button should not be considered a Best Picture contender.

Ryan: If the movie wasn’t written by the guy who wrote Forrest Gump, Eric Roth, then there might have been a strong plagiarizing case taking shape. The movies are eerily similar—an atypical leading man journeying through life during extraordinary moments while meeting some memorable characters. This might not have been that big of an issue but the unoriginal narrative shoots down an otherwise wholly original idea (of a man aging backwards).

Andy: The 20^th century victory lap the film takes us on is probably the root of what is wrong with this movie. Scenes of WWII, and New York City in the 50s make Benjamin Button seem as if it’s trying too hard. The complexity of Benjamin’s situation and what he must endure with the eccentric people he meets would be plenty to carry the movie along, but in an attempt to be more epic (or self important) the movie has done itself a disservice, diminishing an interesting story and some very good performances.

Ryan: Pitt and Blanchett’s names are also getting tossed around for Oscar nominations and they might come to fruition although I’m not sure if they would be justified. They are both really good in the movie but they don’t give transcendent performances. Although I do think that what holds them back is some uninspired writing. Further compounding the issue is how Fincher is unable to establish a believable lifelong chemistry between the two characters. The audience is shown that these two characters love each other but one never sees why these two characters would fall in love in the first place.

Andy: Pitt gives a very solid performance, helped along by great make-up and special effects work. The main distraction from his acting is in the second third of the movie where he goes from being an interesting character that we’ve been following for an hour to simply being Brad Pitt. Perhaps it wouldn’t be as distracting if the film didn’t proceed to milk his movie star looks for all they are worth during this sequence. It is unfortunate, because an otherwise noteworthy performance is weakened because it.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a pretty good movie that fails to live up to its potential. Just because it is not as Oscar-worthy as expected does not mean it is not still pretty good.

Final grade: B.

Blue Sunday

Another Colts season came to an abrupt end last night when the San Diego Charges beat the Colts 23-17 in overtime.

Uggg.

I've been pining over the lost all day and basically I still have no clear cut reason why we keep having these early exits from the playoffs. It's been said before and I think it's worth repeating as it's becoming more and more true that Indianapolis Colts are like the Atlanta Braves of the 1990's. The Braves consistently made the playoffs winning fourteen division titles in a row. But they only won one World Series--in 1995. I rooted for most of those teams (Maddux played for the Braves from 1993 to 2003) and I can tell you that not only did it suck from year to year but it became inexplicable why the just couldn't win another title.

I don't really see that labeling this version of the Colts as the Braves as an outright negative thing because that devalues the regular season success (and consistency) that the Braves (and Colts) have/are achieving. But it just defies logic why a team can have so much regular season success but (almost) fail year after year to close the deal.

Another thing that nauseates me the most is how every armchair quarterback is going to have their reason for the latest playoff debacle. Dungy's not fiery enough...the players don't play with emotion...Manning chokes...they can't run the ball (which I would argue is pretty much why they didn't win the game this year)...and so on.

It was hard to process all those Braves disasters but it almost numbed you after so long. It's not that they were cursed--where crazy shit was actually happening--it just seemed like the Braves had to play perfect to win and the other team didn't...and they would still win. For example...in the 2000 NLDS they couldn't even beat the Cardinal's Rick Ankiel and his five wild pitches.

For whatever reason it seems like the Colts have to play perfect football to win but they other team doesn't. Look at last night's game...LT doesn't hardly play...the Charges have two costly turnovers (we have none)...and we still lose. I hate to say...that maybe it just wasn't meant to be...and that seems like a pretty lousy excuse...but it does help me to process the loss a little easier.

I don't know...I'm just going to quit rambling because I don't really know if I'm making sense or not or if that I can accurately come up with some sort of reason why the Colts can't get it done.

Well...I'll just turn my attention to IU basketball...although I really don't see that helping.

Top Tunes of 2008

For the past several years...even before we were dating...I've made a "Best of..." CD mix for Jenny.

After working it out...here's this year's track list. Now I just need to acquire some blank CD's, which sounds so old-fashioned.

1. The Hold Steady, "Constructive Summer"
2. Rihanna, "Distubia"
3. Blitzen Trapper, "Furr"
4. The Ting Tings, "Shut Up and Let Me Go"
5. Mates of State, "The Re-Arranger"
6. The Killers, "Spaceman"
7. Ryan Adams, "Fix It"
8. Vampire Weekend, "M79"
9. The Gaslight Anthem, "The '59 Sound"
10. The Submarines, "You, Me, and the Bourgeoisie"
11. Panic At the Disco, "Nine In the Afternoon"
12. Jay-Z & T.I., "Swagga Like Us (featuring Kanye West and Lil Wayne)
13. Black Kids, "Look at Me (When I Rock Wichoo)
14. R.E.M., "Supernatural Superserious"
15. MGMT, "Time to Pretend"
16. The Fireman, "Sing the Changes"
17. Titus Andronicus, "Titus Andronicus"
18. The Walkmen, "In the New Year"
19. Vampire Weekend, "A-Punk"
20. Coldplay, "Viva la Vida"
21. Oasis, "I'm Outta Time"
22. Bruce Springsteen, "The Wrestler"

--I've bold faced my five favorite songs on the year.

--For what it's worth I would vote for Vampire Weekend's self-titled CD as the album of the year.