The Ides of March

When I first saw the poster for Ides of March, several things came to mind.  First of all, I thought that was a pretty cool poster; it can be disarming how much two handsome men can fit the same mold and yet look different. 

***Too...much...handsome...for...one...screen...!***

The second thing I noticed was the stellar cast; three Oscar winners, some great character actors, a rising star and...Evan Rachel Wood.  Finally, I noticed the release date and the filmmakers; Fall is typically when most Oscar bait comes out and George Clooney directed and co-wrote this picture with Grant Heslov, his co-writer on Good Night, and Good Luck.  This kind of looked like Clooney trying, once again, to make Important Movies with Capital Letters; while I like Good Night, And Good Luck and Syriana, neither one was much fun to watch.  Great dramas don't have to be fun, but if you're aiming for greatness, you've got to hit it out of the park, or else you underwhelm your audience.  Would Ides of March finally be Clooney's political movie masterpiece?

Flag pin: check!  Political importance: pending

Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) is running for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States against Senator Ted Pullman (Michael Mantell).  Stephen (Ryan Gosling) is the idealistic and instinctively brilliant junior campaign manager for Governor Morris; the senior campaign manager is Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who has experience and political savvy.  Both candidates need to win the official support of crazy ass Senator Thompson (Jeffrey Wright), who controls enough delegates to sway and clinch the nomination for either candidate.  Pretty cut and dry so far, right?  Stephen is a rising star who both legitimately believes in his candidate and is getting to show off how awesome he is, every time Governor Morris says or does something clever in public.  As the campaign heats up, though, both Stephen's idealism and his fantastic career suffer enormous setbacks.  Can he fight back and save what is rightfully his, or will he have to sacrifice one for the other?

Production note: there are a lot of corded phones in this flick

If there is one thing that The Ides of March is not lacking in, it is acting talent.  I kind of have a thing for Ryan Gosling right now (ever since I saw Drive), and he has a good handle on the whole charming-but-occasionally-coldly-manipulative thing here.  George Clooney turns in a similarly effective performance; it was kind of cool seeing him turn on the "public face" charm and then, in private, have a different attitude.  Both men were good, but not great, in similar roles.  What impressed me most in this film were the dueling performances by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti, who played Senator Pullman's senior campaign manager.  Both turned in terrific performances; I really liked Giamatti's resignation toward being a spider-like bastard and Hoffman's uncharacteristic explosion took me by surprise.  The rest of the cast was solid, but nothing extraordinary.  Jeffrey Wright gave another good small performance as a fairly unlikable character. 

Mostly for his attitude during the "Yo Mama" jokes part of political speeches

Marisa Tomei was effective as a tough reporter.  Evan Rachel Wood was pretty good as a Morris campaign intern.  You might recognize Max Minghella's eyebrows from The Social Network; he plays a similarly small role here.

While the acting is good, the best parts don't get nearly enough attention.  I seriously loved Giamatti and Hoffman as heartless dueling chessmasters, but this movie needed either Gosling or Wood to be the characters that impressed. 

...and it wasn't going to be her bipolar character

This is one of the problems I have with George Clooney as a writer/director.  While I appreciate his apparent modesty when in the directing chair (his only major role in a picture he directed was in the comedy Leatherheads), I think he tends to value the theme of his movies more than the performances.  The Ides of March looks pretty good and is told in a competent fashion, but it felt like Clooney was holding back for most of the film.  I was more than willing to wait for the hammer to drop, but when it did, I was left cold.  For reasons that elude me, it seems that George Clooney expects audiences to be shocked by political backstabbing and corruption.  Maybe someone should tell him that Watergate was almost forty years ago now; Americans haven't trusted their elected officials to be anything but bastards for decades.

Moments later, at least one man would have a knife in his back

That's not to say that The Ides of March is a waste of time; it's just not as excellent as it should be, given the talent involved.  Here's what I liked:

• while Clooney is an outspoken Democrat, this film doesn't target (or even mention) Republicans, which makes this a lot less abrasive than it might have been
• Ryan Gosling's crazy eyes when he finds out Governor Morris' secret are priceless
• I loved Giamatti's character when he explained his motives

"Well, Stephen, I'm made entirely of bastard molecules"

Here's what I didn't like:

• Really?  That is the scandal facing Governor Morris?  Couldn't they try something unique?
• Evan Rachel Wood's character's motives confuse me.  SPOILER ALERT: Maybe I just don't understand pregnancy (which is very possible), but I have trouble imagining a seemingly carefree young woman essentially demanding sex from a handsome man when A) she knows she is pregnant B) is freaking the hell out about being pregnant and C) her new sexy time partner is not her baby daddy.
• That title sucks so much.  Sure, they were clever enough to set Election Day on March 15, but did they have to use this title?  While slightly literary, the only people who want to watch this film will know exactly what the title refers to --- if they weren't going to be subtle, they might as well have titled the movie "Political Betrayal: The Movie"

And to be completely honest, I would not have minded any of those flaws too much if the film had only had a better message.  The Ides of March is not an expose, but it has the feel of one; if they had focused on the betrayal and built up Stephen's idealism more, this could have (maybe) been a great film. 

Stephen, in mourning for his innocence

Sadly, it's stuck in that limbo of "pretty good," where a lot of movies get forgotten.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

There are few movies that I am less inclined to see than the "tearjerker."  I have nothing against tears or jerking, it's just...well, why watch a sad movie, when there are explosions to be had?  Sadly, I did watch Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (not ...Uncomfortably Close, as I have often misquoted the title), because it was nominated for 2011's Best Picture Oscar.  While I am not a big fan of sentimental films, the book this is based on was written by the author of Everything Is Illuminated, which is a decently weird movie.  Maybe there is something more than sad in this film...?  Maybe...?

Oskar (Thomas Horn) is a weird kid.  You might think that he is autistic or something, but apparently the tests came back inconclusive.  Anyways, he's a weird kid dealing with some heavy tragedy.  Oskar's natural weirdness makes it difficult for him to deal with the real world, much less other human beings.  Luckily, his father (Tom Hanks) understands him and goes to great lengths to get Oskar out of his shell.  For instance, dad gives Oskar frequent quests, where Oskar must follow the clues to a hidden treasure of questionable value; Oskar has fun and employs critical thinking while his dad makes sure he interacts with strangers and faces other vaguely autistic fears.

...Like touching the floor --- it's lava, you know...!

Then, everything goes pear-shaped.  Dad is, by a fluke of his schedule, caught in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, which Oskar refers to as "the worst day."  He calls home several times, but his wife (Sandra Bullock) isn't home and Oskar can't bring himself to answer. Dad dies.  A year later, an increasingly isolated Oskar stumbles across a key amidst his late father's belongings.  Believing this to be part of one of his scavenger hunts, Oskar decides to scour New York City for information leading to the destination for his mystery key.  You can't just figure out what a fairly anonymous key goes to without introducing yourself to a few dozen random strangers, though, so Oskar forces himself out of his shell to unlock his father's final puzzle.  In the meantime, I think we can all assume that he'll discover something more symbolic and puppet-stringing, right?

Look, I don't have a particular problem with stories that use September 11th as a backdrop.  It's emotionally inflammatory, but I understand that there are a lot of good stories that revolve around that date.  Honestly, I doubt that World Trade Center and United 93 are great films, but I respect the need to make them. In a way, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is a lot like Bruce Springsteen's The Rising; it may not necessarily be about September 11th, but it certainly is flavored by it.

September 11 is one of those moments in history where you are supposed to remember where you were and what you were doing when the shit went down.  Personally, I was lucky enough to be in college at the time, catching the early action on morning television, before being stunned with my friends in a dormitory common room.  For the record, I still went to all my classes that day, although there weren't many that were worth attending that day.

It's not your fault, Max

Once you get beyond the emotional mindfuck that comes from a plot that deals with senseless tragedy, you might find yourself focusing on the actors.  Thomas Horn is the main character, and I completely understand if you found him irritating; he isn't exactly autistic (he's somewhere on the spectrum, though), but he's very peculiar and odd enough to stick out, even in New York City.  I can't say that his peculiarities bothered me, but I understand if they bothered you.

Okay, that tambourine irritated the shit out of me

Tom Hanks was essentially what you want Tom Hanks to be in this movie; he was the perfect dad --- loving, clever, understanding, and demanding all in one Oscar-winning doughboy.  This is the most likable I have seen Hanks in almost a decade.  Sandra Bullock played his loving wife, who balances mind-numbing grief with plot twists bold enough to almost make you think she isn't the worst parent in NYC.

Reading your kid's diary doesn't make you a good parent

Max von Sydow gave a great performance as Oskar's helper/possible relative; it wasn't too difficult of a role, but he made the lack of dialogue seem irrelevant, which is the benchmark of a good actor in a gimmicky role.  Viola Davis and Jeffrey Wright also played key small parts, and they were as good as you should expect them to be in supporting roles.  In other words, "very."  The only small role that confused me was John Goodman as the abrasive doorman; he was fine, but I was surprised to see such a fine actor in such a bit part.  I was not, however, surprised to see Chris Hardwick playing a funeral director; I love the guy, but he's not much of an actor.

This isn't Stephen Daldry's first Best Picture-nominated film, you know.  He made The Reader and The Hours, not to mention Billy Elliot back in the day.  For some reason, though, I feel the need to justify Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close as an Oscar contender.  This is, without a doubt, a well-made film.  There is nothing technically flawed in this movie.  If you have studied film style, you will find EL&IC a cornucopia of established film styles.  And yet...and yet...this is kind of a dull film.

Don't get me wrong.  Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close will make you cry.  I you don't weep, your heart is made of ash and you probably rape penguins for fun.  That doesn't make this a great film.  Instead, it feels a lot like a well-made simulation of human emotion.  The story is a little drawn out and more than a little obvious, but the pacing is excellent and the gradual reveals are expertly done.  At the very least, it makes sure to hit as many broad emotional marks as it can; if you have a strained relationship with your mother, then consider this the reason you call your mom crying this year.  If you are on solid ground with your parents...well, you might as well give them a call, since the inevitable zombie apocalypse is on its way, anyhow...

I happen to have a pretty solid relationship with my parents, so that little guilt trip didn't make Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close strike a chord for me.  Is this a great film?  Absolutely not.  It is a very well-acted and well-directed Lifetime movie of the week.  The loose connection to a tragedy makes it seem more relevant, but the key to this film is that "the worst day" shouldn't influence every single day.  I completely understand if this movie hits home for you, though, since it does strike some very basic chords.  However, if you are lucky enough to A) not be directly affected by this tragedy and B) not fight with your parents, then this film will not provide the Oscar "oomph" you may be expecting from a nominee.

Source Code

It took me a while to get around to it, but I finally sat down to watch Duncan Jones' follow-up to Moon, Source Code, this week.  If I had put a little more thought into my timing, I could have watched it on Groundhog Day and had myself a very poignant moment.  Hindsight, people, hindsight...

Source Code opens with a very disoriented Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) waking up on a commuter train, heading for Chicago.  The woman sitting across from him, Christina (Michelle Monaghan) is talking to him and calling him "Sean."  The last thing he remembers is piloting a helicopter in Afghanistan, so Colter is just as mystified as the audience is.  Things get weirder when he runs to the bathroom and sees an unfamiliar face in the mirror.  What the hell is happening here?  And then the train explodes, killing everyone on board.

The end.

Colter wakes up in a military facility, in some sort of testing chamber or something.  There, he gets a little background on his situation (via a monitor) from Captain Goodwin (Vera Farmiga).  A terrorist has bombed the Chicago Metra Commuter Rail and contacted the authorities; this is just as an opening act for his next attack, which will be the detonation of a nuclear device somewhere in Chicago.  That's awfully sporting of the terrorist, to give authorities a heads-up.  That's not completely idiotic in the least.  Thanks to a highly experimental program run by Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright), the authorities may be able to stop the next bombing, but the clock is ticking.  Rutledge's program allows Colter's consciousness to hop into the mind of Sean, one of the victims of the bombing, and relive the eight minutes prior to the explosion.  Colter isn't bound by Sean's actions, though; Colter can make different choices and do different things in those eight minutes.  Basically, Colter is being sent into a close-looped alternate reality, where the same people will do the same things, unless Colter influences them differently; after the eight minutes, Colter awakes in his metal pod thing, reports, and is sent back over and over, until he catches the bomber.  But what about Colter?  What makes him the one person who can stop the bomber?  And what about the people on the train?  If Colter is creating an alternate reality, couldn't he affect the future outside of those eight minutes?  Couldn't he save everyone?

I ask the tough questions, Jake

That may sound a lot like a plot-heavy science fiction story, but director Duncan Jones manages to make this into a fairly taut thriller.  There is a sense of urgency here that the whole "reliving the same moments over and over again" concept should probably negate, but strangely does not.  Kudos to Jones for that.  I thought the movie looked and felt fine, with solid performances from the cast and some clever choices (like not having the science in this fiction explained) that made this cerebral concept into a bit of an action movie.  And I mean that in an unexpectedly good way.

Jake Gyllenhaal heads up the cast of Source Code, and I liked him just fine.  I'm not a big Jake supporter, and this isn't his best work, but he handled an interesting character with unconventional stresses well enough.  I thought Michelle Monaghan was charming as the secondary character; she was stuck repeating a lot of the same things, but her character grew on me as the film progressed.  The same cannot be said about Jeffrey Wright's character, who is comically shallow and abrasive.

Funniest moment is when Wright fastidiously parts his bald spot

I like Wright, but his character would have been 200% better if he acted sympathetic or vaguely human; his choices would have had dramatic impact then, instead of simply being the inevitable move of a villain.  Vera Farmiga is okay in a fairly limited role, if only because she shows evidence of an inner conflict.  The rest of the cast was largely inconsequential, but I did recognize Michael Arden and Russell Peters in shallow roles.

On the one hand, I really want to like Source Code.  It manages to pull off a cool science fiction concept without a huge budget, and its charm comes primarily from the characters and not the plot.  I wasn't bothered by the science in this movie, either.  Sometimes movies try to explain their ridiculous concepts too much, and sometimes they opt to keep the audience completely in the dark, but I thought Source Code did a good job of straddling the line between those two, and I think the story was better for it.

Wait...why is it cold...wherever he is?  Um...science?

I did have some major issues with this movie, though.  First and foremost, I found myself irritated by the repetitious nature of the story (in the first half, anyway).  Jake Gyllenhaal is no Bill Murray, and Source Code is definitely not Groundhog Day, so this movie needed something to keep the viewer interested in the rehashed scenes.  The intention is clearly for the mystery of the bomber to keep your attention, but it's pretty obvious from the start who the bomber is.  SPOILER-ish ALERT: I mean, we know that the bomber has plans that don't involve the train, so we're dealing with either a suicidal terrorist with excellent planning skills that dies on the train, or someone who leaves the train to better bomb Chicago.  If it was me, I would investigate the people leaving the train first.  But that's just me.  Since I solved the mystery on my own with about two seconds of thought, I was less than enthralled by the scene reduxes. 

Attempt 137: testing the effectiveness of rap battles in drawing out the terrorist

The second half of the film is much better, but there are some disturbing (and probably unintentional) repercussions that are left unaddressed.  DEFINITE SPOILER ALERT: So Colter is able to replace the consciousness of Sean with his own, right?  That only works because both men are, essentially dead.  But what happens when Colton changes reality?  Sean is now alive, but his consciousness appears to be gone.  Did Colton just steal the life of a totally nice guy?  Worse, did he do it with a smile?  What a dick!  And now, he will have to fake being Sean for the next fifty years, feigning recognition of friends and family and having to figure out how he's going to bluff his way through being a history teacher.  Seriously, what kind of a happy ending is that?  He even refers to it as "fate."  Jerk.  And then there are the paradoxes.  Is this an all-new "prime" reality, or is it an alternate one?  I would have really appreciated a little speculation on this subject in the script.  According to the the story's logic, Colton rewrote history in the prime timeline, but how can Colton's consciousness be invading Sean's noggin when it is also in his useless body at the Army base?  That seems problematic to me.  And then there is the logic of the terrorist.  I am willing to buy into a villain being dumb enough to explain his evil plan to the good guys before he has enacted said plan.  It happens all the time in comic books and movies.  I would have preferred for this villain to not be that dumb, but I understand the plot's need for that moronic behavior.  What I don't get is his cover plan.  He's planning to explode multiple trains in a jumble of fire and twisted metal, so his alibi is to SPOILER ALERT: leave his wallet on the train?  Really?!?  What are the chances of that being found?  And why does he care?  If he's writing manifestos, this is a person who wants a soap box opportunity, not somebody who will fade into the night.  It's not even like that is a rock-solid alibi, either.  If the police find it --- and that's a huge "if" --- it's not like he's off the hook for the bombings.  At best, he confuses the police for a little while...months and months later, as people poke through the rubble of a post-nuclear Chicago. 

Here's the funny thing, though: I would have been really impressed with Source Code if it had made just one or two small changes.  I wish Colter had to fight off Sean's personality from time to time; it would have added an extra layer to the story (perhaps the eight minute window is because that's how long Colter can stay in control?) and it would have given Colter a moral choice to make in the final act of the film.  Or, of course, the writer could have found a way around having the terrorist be pudding-up-the-nose stupid.  Either one would have gone a long way.  Still, this was a pretty cool science fiction idea that was executed well.  It was unfortunately written by the guy whose highest profile writing gigs before this were the third and fourth entries in the Species series.  Good direction and solid acting wasn't enough to make Source Code awesome, but even crappy writing doesn't make it bad.

Syriana

 Syriana is a challenging film to watch.  Its title alone --- which I don't believe the movie ever directly addresses --- refers to the idea of people or countries molding other nation-states however they see fit, and the hubris behind such thinking.  As you might have guessed, this isn't a romantic comedy.

The plot behind Syriana, while comprehensible, is very complex, so I'm not going to waste any time detailing it.  It would take me forever and you wouldn't want to read it anyway, since this is a film where paying attention to the story is the only way not to get lost.  The basic idea is that the world dependency on foreign oil is bad for a number of reasons.  Way to take a stand, Hollywood.  It also addresses the need for oil states to develop their own identities, the effectiveness of the CIA, and the costs/benefits of high-level corruption.  What makes Syriana interesting is that it chooses to handle these issues simultaneously, so we can see how each issue impacts another.  You won't see how everything fits together for some time, as there are four storylines that exist largely independent of each other until the final quarter of the movie.  When they dovetail together, though, you are left with something to think about.  Or not.  One thing that everyone can agree on is that this is definitely not an action movie.

I did a Google Image search for "syriana action" and found this.

The cast of Syriana is shockingly noteworthy, although many of these actors do not get a whole lot of screen time.  George Clooney won his only Oscar for his role as a CIA agent who specializes in protecting American interests in the Middle East.  The big news with his performance here is that Clooney gained some weight and a beard to play the part; I don't know how much that impacts his character.  Was this an Oscar-winning performance?  Eh.  It's a fine effort among an ensemble cast, but I don't find it particularly outstanding.  Matt Damon is also fine as a consultant hired by the prince of the oil-rich emirate to make the nation more fiscally sound.  His character is also handling marital issues and a family tragedy, so Damon has the opportunity to show off some complex skills in this film; I thought he did a very good job, given the businesslike script.  Jeffrey Wright plays a lawyer that has been hired to smooth the way for an enormous oil company to merge with a smaller one that has cornered a key market; his job is convince the antitrust people that the merger is corruption-free.  I like seeing Wright in key supporting roles, but I thought his character here was a too void of emotions.  I never really had a sense of his character, and the recurring attempt to give him depth just felt clumsy.  Those are the big three, as far as characters in this movie go.  None of them are fascinating in their own right, but they are all quite believable as ordinary people that are good at their respective jobs.

This is not Ocean's 14

There is a fourth storyline that addresses the plight of immigrant workers in the Middle East and the allure of militant Islam.  Of the three actors in this story, only the missile-buying militant (Amr Waked) acts with any sort of regularity, and it shows.  The two innocent youngsters are played by two innocent actors without much more than half a dozen visible emotions between them.

And then there's the rest of the cast.  In George's storyline, William Hurt does his typical good acting thing as a confidant and Mark Strong plays a very very bad man.  Both roles are easily within the acting range of these men, but it was nice to see them handled so well.  In Damon's story, Amanda Peet plays his wife; while not a particularly strong role, she didn't screw it up, which is much better than Peet's leading roles.  I thought Alexander Siddig was very likable as the progressive-minded Prince Nassir, possibly the most positive portrayal of a Middle Eastern Muslim I have seen in years.  In Wright's story, Chris Cooper plays a domineering business owner with an abrasive personality (shocker!), Christopher Plummer is one of those white men who like to be the power behind the throne, David Clennon is interested in corruption, and Tim Blake Nelson plays a corrupt oilman.  Of all these capable actors, only Nelson delivers anything exceptional.  He gives a speech about corruption (he's unapologetically pro-corruption, by the way) that was the highlight of the movie for me.  I would show a video clip of his rant, but apparently nobody on the internet cares about TBN (as his buddies undoubtedly call him) laying some truth down on Jeffrey Wright.  I was able to find my favorite scene of his from O Brother, Where Art Thou? though:


This is a difficult movie to direct, I'm sure, and I thought that Stephen Gaghan did a respectable job here.  I do not believe he got any great performances out of his wealth of actors (with the exception of Nelson), but he did do a good job piecing this film together in a comprehensible whole.  He doesn't dumb down the story (which was loosely based on See No Evil, a memoir by an ex-CIA agent), instead choosing to overwhelm viewers with the plot.  That choice may alienate some viewers, and that's understandable.  Personally, I was able to follow along, even though I was irritated by his seemingly arbitrary choices on when to cut to another storyline, which storyline to cut to, and when to include a caption on the screen to indicate where it was taking place.  The film looks decent enough, although the camera work is nothing special.  That's not too surprising, since Gaghan is an award-winning writer, not a director; he co-wrote this movie, as well as Traffic.

As much as I appreciate what Syriana does right --- an interesting and relevant political story, interweaving plot threads, and moral shades of gray --- there are just too many things that it does wrong or simply avoids to make it a great movie.  The only character in the film that has a full character arc is Clooney's, and that development is mostly off-camera and is cut short.  There are so many characters and so little time given to them that it was hard to care about any.  I realize that, as a plot-driven "issue" movie, that isn't really the point of the film.  I also don't care.  There are three potentially interesting stories in this film (the terrorists-in-training one was predictable and dull) and all three had the acting talent to make them work.  The fact that this isn't an acting tour de force (or at least fun to watch) is almost criminal.  There are five Oscar winners involved with this movie, and the best scene features Tim Blake Nelson monologuing?  That makes no damn sense, and I like Nelson.

Not as much as Lisa does, though.

I also didn't find the story to be particularly revelatory.  Maybe I'm cynical, but the CIA trying to control foreign governments to get America what resources it needs sounds pretty accurate.  The stuff of bastards?  Sure.  But it makes sense, from a "me first and screw everyone else" point of view.  Nelson's speech was the only interesting take on these issues in the whole movie, and that's a shame because I think this could have been so much more interesting.  The whole story with Damon and Siddig had potential --- how to introduce political and socioeconomic change effectively within an orthodox Islamic culture has relevance, right? --- but didn't have enough time to develop on its own.  Clooney's CIA agent (with a heart of gold) could have had his own movie.  Wright's legal storyline takes on thriller overtones as soon as his boss starts playing king maker.  But when you squeeze these stories into one (well-edited, mind you) movie, they don't have room to grow.  Syriana has some great ideas in it, but the barrage of plot simply distracts you from the fact that you can't care for any of these characters.