Allow me to introduce myself

My name is Michael, and I am a man with opinions. Opinions about movies. And you lucky dogs get to hear them!

I'm Adam's brother - but don't let that give you the wrong idea, I'm actually quite sophisticated and intelligent. Seriously though, Adam and Ben have created an excellent blog which I've been following since its inception, and I'm happy to say that I'll be contributing now and then.

Although the scope of Adam's movie-watching résumé baffles even me, I know a bit about film myself, as I am currently studying it at school and hope to someday work in the medium. So I'll be posting some reviews and insights here, and I hope that you enjoy them!

12 Angry Men

So when I started this blog, I meant to have a fairly even mix of the old and the new. Recently we have been on a new release or in theater binge, so to switch things up, I thought I would review one of my all-time favorite movies... Sidney Lumet's first-ever film, the 1957 drama 12 Angry Men.

The film opens in a court house on a hot night, right before the jury deliberates on a murder trial. As you may have guessed from the title, it revolves around the twelve members of the jury. An all middle aged or older, all-male, all-white, all-middle class or up jury is about to decide on the fate of an 18 year-old boy who is clearly not white and not middle class. He is accused of stabbing his father to death and if found guilty, must be sent to the chair. After the judge reads the jury their instructions, the movie moves into the jury room and stays there for essentially the remainder of the film. Once inside, we quickly discover that the vast majority firmly believe the boy is guilty. One man, however, has his doubts.

The cast is spectacular. All twelve members of the jury are given ample dialogue and screen time to create full fledged characters, and the actors do not disappoint. None of them are cardboard cutouts. We are reminded many times over the course of the movie that these are all ordinary people with their own lives and experiences that they are bringing to bear on the evidence, and how that causes each of them to have their own unique viewpoint.

Henry Fonda as the lone dissenter, Juror #8, is terrific and brings a great deal of intelligence to the role. Lee J Cobb is equally charismatic as the "excitable" nemesis to Fonda, Juror #3. E.G. Marshall's coldly logical Juror #4 and Ed Begley's racist Juror #10 both deserve mention.

The filming of this movie would seemingly be simple. Sidney Lumet, making his first feature film, displays the ability he would show several times later on in his career as he places the viewer inside the jury room. While the film progresses, Lumet changes angles and uses close-ups to great effect, slowly constricting the room and increasing our claustrophobia. It is a masterful debut.

12 Angry Men is a simultaneously optimistic and pessimistic view of the American judicial system. It extolls all its virtues (including the idea of reasonable doubt), and it appears to be praising the ability of twelve ordinary people to come to a consensus. Unspoken however, are grave concerns. Racism is an ever present danger, and a jury is just a likely to have a Lee J Cobb as it is to have a Henry Fonda.

A must see.

27/30

Greenberg

What's that, boy?  Greenberg is playing at the Little Theater?  Let's go, quick! 

Greenberg is about a brief period in the life of Roger Greenberg, played wonderfully by Ben Stiller, a socially impaired man just about to turn 41.  Just released from a mental hospital (the reason for his stay is left tantalizingly unknown for the most part), Greenberg moves into his brother's house for a spell to set his life in order.  There he meets Florence (Greta Gerwig), a much younger personal assistant that he engages with in what can barely be called a relationship.

Greenberg's plot is dolled out slowly, but expertly, over the course of the movie.  Hints of Greenberg's past are alluded to at first, but the viewer do not fully understand the emotions driving him until well into the movie.  The immediate satisfaction derived from the film is the interactions between characters.  Far from what I expected, Greenberg is an extremely easy movie to watch.  It is filled with comedy, and cut almost like a Adam McKay film (Anchorman and Talladega Nights), with punchlines ending scenes with a bang and the audience's laughter transitioning Greenberg from one location to the next.

Stiller plays Greenberg fearlessly and unflinchingly; a nearly unlikable protagonist.  Stiller's charisma and the brilliant writing allow you to root for a main character who does everything possible to sabotage his relationship with the one woman in his life who is accommodating, sweet, and attracted to him.  Gerwig's Florence is also well played, understated and yet still bubbly and likable.  Similarly, Noah Baumbach does not draw attention to direction of the movie, allowing the characters to focus the movie behind their personal issues.

If you have the means, see Greenberg.  It is terrific.

25/30

News Hour with Routinely Average

Here are some news stories about whats going on in the movie business, accompanied by RA's take.

News: The notorious Tom Cruise might be reprising his wildly popular role as Les Grossman, the foul-mouthed movie exec from the 2008 comedy Tropic Thunder, in a spin-off movie with Grossman as the main character. He also recently made an appearance as Grossman at the MTV movie awards where he performed a dance number with J. Lo. LINK
RA's Take: I'm not usually a big fan of spin-offs, but Cruise was hysterical in Tropic Thunder. Some smart writing, and maybe Ben Stiller back to direct could lead to very funny things. Plus its nice to see Tom back in the spotlight in a positive way.

News: It sounds like Sony has settled on Jamie Bell as the new Peter Parker for the upcoming Spider Man reboot. Cinematical looks at how appropriate the choice is. LINK
RA's Take: I don't really get why we need a reboot anyway considering we just finished a trilogy with a significantly more popular actor in Tobey Maguire. Cinematical raises some interesting points though, and who knows. I try not to write off a project before it has even begun filming.

News: Guillermo Del Toro is no longer directing The Hobbit. The director of Pan's Labyrinth seemed to be the perfect fit to bring the world of Middle-Earth to life in his own distinct way. Apparently filming delays and uncertainty surrounding the financial side of the movie were too much for Del Toro. LINK
RA's Take: I was truly excited about a Del Toro version of The Hobbit and it seems that this troubled production might never get made. MGM's financial woes, combined with the difficulty of finding a new director to not only step in so late, but also be up to the task artistically seem like they might be insurmountable obstacles. Very disappointing news.

News: Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl's new comedy, Killers gets panned by critics once they were finally able to see it. LINK
RA's Take: Not all the surprising. It looked crappy, and then gave the figurative finger to movie critics everywhere. Can't imagine Lionsgate execs are shocked.

News: The annual actresses under 30 power rankings by lovefilm.com were just released with some surprising entries. LINK
RA's Take: It's not that the usual suspects aren't on there, but many of them are much lower than expected as a new group of young women have burst onto the scene in the past year.

News: Since we are getting so close to the World Cup, here is an interesting LA Times article for you about why there is no definitive Hollywood soccer movie. LINK
RA's Take: I love soccer, and have often lamented the lack of a major soccer movie. Maybe one is coming down the pike as soccer (or should I say football) continues to increase in popularity in the US.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Sorry about the long layoff there guys. I'm gonna try to get back on it and post at least once a week here. Here is an interesting one to start us off again.

Terry Gilliam has always been an inventive director. One of the members of the famed British comedy troupe Monty Python, Gilliam brings a zaniness to his films that few can match. His latest effort, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, is no exception. With a story that ranges from bizarre to totally nonsensical, Gilliam and his cast and crew construct a film around it that actually succeeds as entertainment, if not as a philosophical discussion.

Unfortunately, this film's legacy will not be tied to anything other than Heath Ledger, making his last appearance ever here, as he tragically died halfway through filming. Instead of halting production or re-filming Ledger's scenes with another actor, Gilliam made the decision to continue with three other actors taking on Ledger's role at various points in the film. Thanks to an ingenious plot device, this endeavor works pretty well, and gives us one last chance to watch Ledger at work.

To give you a brief summary of the incredibly complicated plot; it revolves around the extremely ancient Dr. Parnassus, who claims to be immortal, and his ragtag group of traveling thespians, as they attempt to battle the Devil, also known as Mr. Nick, for souls within Parnassus' Imaginarium. Parnassus and the Devil are also locked in a wager where the winner gets Parnassus' beautiful daughter Valentina as soon as she turns 16. When all is seemingly lost, in steps the mysterious Tony (Ledger), who offers a chance to best the Devil, but has hidden motivations of his own.

The overly convoluted story line and nearly indecipherable figurative and philosophic meanderings of the movie make it a tricky one to follow. But that is not where this film gets its juice from. Gilliam's wild imagination is always fun to watch when he unleashes its full force, combined with a cast that embraces the weirdness of it all, it provides a very watchable film. Ledger is solid as Tony. Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell play the various other incarnations of Tony, with Depp standing out. Christopher Plummer and Tom Waits steal the show as the continuously gambling Parnassus and Mr. Nick respectively. Lily Cole makes an impressive film debut as Valentina.

Overall it is a flawed film. Gilliam let the plot get away from him, Verne Troyer has way too much dialogue as Parnassus' sidekick, and Ledger's character probably would have benefitted from only having one actor. In the end though, it will always be remembered as Ledger's fairwell role, and as that, it works reasonably well.

22/30