Midnight in Paris

I grew up with stupid comedies.  I love early Steve Martin and Mel Brooks, I can't help enjoying the nonstop barrage of movies like Airplane! or Top Secret!, and I have an unwavering love for the first Ace Ventura, despite the butt-talking.  I blame my dad for exposing my young mind to such perfectly crafted stupidity, but let's be honest --- I probably would have found my way to these movies without his help.  Not surprisingly, I grew up enjoying early Woody Allen films like Sleeper and Bananas, as well.  And, after those...well, there's pretty large gap.  I've never been able to endure the earnest awkwardness of Annie Hall (I think I've started it about six times and never made it more than thirty minutes in).  Someone told me that The Purple Rose of Cairo was amazing --- and it is clever, I'll agree --- but I certainly wasn't prepared for a Woody Allen movie that wasn't peppered with jokes.  Every time Allen releases a film (approximately every 4-8 months, from what I can tell), I always hear comments from Woody's apologists, saying "It's his best movie since ____," but I typically have never felt like watching the referenced movie, much less something with Jason Biggs in it.  Nevertheless, I did break from tradition and see Midnight in Paris.  And, to all the haters of the Woody Allen subgenre out there: the Allen apologists are right on this one.

Gil (Owen Wilson) is on a vacation in Paris with his fiancee, Inez (Rachel McAdams), and it's pretty obvious that they're not a great couple.  On paper, they should work; Gil is a successful Hollywood screenwriter and she...well, I'm not sure if she has a profession, but she appears to be wealthy, pretty and sociable --- a solid pairing for Hollywood brown-nosing.  Gil isn't satisfied, though.  He has taken time off work to write his first novel, and it's not going as well as he would have liked.  He's hoping to be inspired by the city of Paris, where so many of his idols lived and loved in the 1920s; Inez just hopes he will snap out of it so they can move to Malibu.  But no, Gil wants to drink in the romance of the city.  As luck would have it, the pair accidentally encounter some of Inez's friends, Paul (Michael Sheen) and Carol (Nina Arianda), and Gil's romantic Paris getaway becomes a group tour, where Paul narrates the history and meaning of everything they see.  Paul's knowledge and accuracy are questionable at best, but Carol and Inez fawn over him.  Annoyed by Paul's powerfully distilled blowhard-edness, Gil decides to spend some time on his own in Paris.

"And here's to you shutting the hell up"

He finds himself alone and drunk in an alley when the clock strikes midnight.  A car pulls up to the curb and the occupants invite him inside.  Being drunk, Gil doesn't notice how odd everyone is dressed until he finds himself at a party, introduced to Zelda (Alison Pill) and Scott (Tom Hiddleston) , arguably the poster boy for romantic writers obsessed with Paris.  And they are exactly as he always imagined they would be!

Specifically, Gil imagined they would be also play  Sex Bob-omb's drummer and Loki

Following the Fitzgeralds to another party, Gil meets and befriends Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), who agrees to take Gil's novel to Gertrude Stein for an opinion.  But when he leaves the bar, he has returned to the present day.  If you were faced with a present where you feel unaccomplished and unhappy, and a "golden age" where you can interact with your idols, which would you pick?  Understandably, Gil starts living for the time he can spend in the past.  That's not particularly healthy, though.

Worst breakup speech ever: "I'm from the future..."

First things first, I must admit that I've never been to Paris, so I don't know how accurately Woody Allen is portraying the city.  I will say that Midnight in Paris does a good job capturing the romantic and exciting allure of the city; I don't know how much of that is rooted in reality, anyway.  At this point in his career, Woody Allen has been a legitimate film legend for at least thirty years, so he can fill his cast with just about any actor he wants and use them on an unabashedly nostalgic project.  On so many levels, Midnight in Paris should not work.  Owen Wilson has to be sympathetic, yet flawed, instead of smarmy and slightly more likable than some other jerk, which is his typical range; nostalgia can make for some poignant moments, but there's a fine line between that and quaintness; the story is pining for an age that most audiences have a limited knowledge of (at best) in a city that most audiences have never been.  The fact that Midnight in Paris works --- and is good, to boot --- is nothing short of astounding.

A big reason for this film's success comes from the actors.  I have never liked Owen Wilson much; I can enjoy him in Wes Anderson films, but I find him annoying in everything else.  Here, though, you're not supposed to completely like him --- and I can do that!  This is definitely the most complicated part I have seen Wilson play, and I thought he pulled it off with charm.  The intentionally unlikable characters (Rachel McAdams and her parents, played by Mimi Kennedy and the often kooky Kurt Fuller) were exactly what they were supposed to be; you were never supposed to like them even a little bit, but they were realistic enough to remind you of someone.  I also loved how convincingly Michael Sheen played a confident know-it-all; I think Sheen is underrated in America, but he delivered a lot of good lines in a style that was perfect for a habitual bullshitter.  For me, though, this is a film made by the bit parts.  There are so many actors --- good actors, too --- who had small roles, playing historical parts, and they were all very entertaining.  I'm not an F. Scott Fitzgerald fiend, but I was instantly able to recognize Scott and Zelda in this movie and it felt right to me.  Similarly, I absolutely loved every moment that included Adrien Brody's Salvador Dali impression and Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein.

I also loved every mention of rhinoceroses

Marion Cotillard was typically lovely, although it is probably difficult to convincingly play a muse; Cotillard's American career continues to mature, as this is yet another atypical leading lady role that she has taken on of late.  Corey Stoll's work as Hemingway was equally impressive; for an actor I had never even heard of to turn in such a bad-ass manly performance was a treat.

Whatever comes out of his mouth can double as a Dos Equis or Old Spice commercial

I also liked Léa Seydoux as the local French gal; it wasn't an especially difficult role, but she was certainly adequate.  There are a few other notable appearances --- Mrs. France, Carla Bruni, has a fairly easy part and Oliver Rabourdin gets to play Gauguin --- but nothing as scene-stealing as what I've already mentioned.

With so many good acting performances, it should not be surprising that I liked Woody Allen's direction.  When he has a good script, Allen can coax out some remarkable performances from actors that typically get out-acted by Jackie Chan.

"To be fair, that was only twice..."

The whole film was extremely clever, and Allen took full advantage by laying visual breadcrumbs for the audience to pick up (or overlook), with regards to certain subplots.  Of course, since Allen directed Midnight in Paris, that means he also wrote it, so that whole "clever" thing goes double here.  I have a passing knowledge of Paris and its expatriates in the 1920s and even some knowledge of the Moulin Rouge-era; I certainly did not catch or appreciate every reference Allen includes in his script and direction, but I knew enough to be impressed by what I understood.  Even if you are oblivious to Gil's "golden age," this is still a very entertaining film; the characters are vibrant and strange and generally enjoyable.  More important than any of that, though, is the overall message.  In a year when so many movies (Hugo, The Artist, Super 8, etc.) have bent over backwards to give the glorious past a friendly handjob, Woody Allen (who has had his share of nostalgic flicks) made a movie that acknowledges that impulse, but then turns that into a forward-facing vision.  I found that incredibly refreshing and that's part of why this film left me with a silly grin on my face.

It is easy to enter into Midnight in Paris with some misconceptions.  It has elements of a romantic comedy; it could have slapstick humor in it, given the writer/director and cast; it could be a snooty Francophilic tribute; it could be yet another underwhelming film from an aging talent.  If you like France or French things, I think you will love this movie.  If you don't give a rat's ass about France, you will probably find it amusingly clever.  If you wish they had never changed the name back from American Fries, then you probably can't read, anyway.  This is easily one of the most well-written movies of 2011 and a welcome reminder of just how good Woody Allen can be.

Morning Glory (2010)

I don't know if "interesting" is how I would describe this.

I'm not a big fan of romantic comedies and, by "not a big fan," I mean that I would destroy them all, if only they hadn't hidden parts of their soul in a bunch of horcruxes.  Sorry, I've been re-watching wizard movies to amp up for the new Harry Potter this weekend.  Anyway, I dislike most comedies and hate most romantic comedies.  Morning Glory dips its toe in both waters, which sounds like a recipe for Brian-hatred.

Before I go on, I would like to point out that this movie appears to be the second film in recent years to reference the band Oasis.  Ryan Reynolds made Definitely, Maybe in 2008 (the band's 1994 debut had that title) and the early promotional posters for Morning Glory looked like this:

Oasis's second album is also called (What's the Story?) Morning Glory.  None of this is important, of course.  I just wanted to point out a small pattern before some moron decides to derail their career with a pompous, coked-out movie called Be Here Now.

Just because we can hear you doesn't mean we're listening.

Anyhoo, Morning Glory is about plucky morning news producer Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams).  Becky lives and breathes for her job, but she is fired from her gig at a local station for unclear, corporate-related reasons.  She bounces back, though, by being hired by a network morning news show, DayBreak, that airs nationally.  That would be the best rebound in history, if DayBreak wasn't the consistent and definite last-place show in its time slot.  What's a plucky young businesswoman to do?  First, she weathers a harsh whirlwind of pre-preemptive criticism from one DayBreak co-host, Colleen (Diane Keaton).  Then she fires the other co-host (Ty Burrell) for work ethic and creepy sexual fetish-related reasons.  That leaves Becky with a last-place show that is short a co-host.  As luck would have it, the station has legendary news correspondent Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford) under contract, but no projects for him to do.  What luck!  As perfect as it would be to have Mike Pomeroy --- THE Mike Pomeroy, Mr. Serious Newscaster --- trade vacuous small talk with Joey Lawrence or whoever the hell else usually pops up on these programs, it turns out that Mike doesn't want to do anything except "real" news.  The animosity between Becky and Mike only gets worse when she starts having the cast do stunts, like broadcast the weather while on board a roller coaster.  Do you smell a conflict?  I smell a recipe for guffaws!

If not guffaws, then maybe a few senior moments?

The cast in Morning Glory is surprisingly (to me, anyway) solid.  Rachel McAdams is good as the hard-working and earnest lead.  I wouldn't say that she has great comic chops, but she is certainly likable --- and that's before she prances around in her panties.

Apparently, this is from a Morning Glory photo shoot.

Her romantic lead in the film is thankfully not Harrison Ford.  Instead, the part is played by Patrick Wilson, who always strikes me as a charisma-free version of Josh Lucas; he's fine here, but his character is almost comically understanding of Becky's work obsession for a character that is supposedly looking for a serious girlfriend.  Harrison Ford is the co-lead in the film, and he gets to frown and speak in a gravelly tone of voice.  I didn't particularly like his performance here --- I dislike when Ford tries to be gruff --- but it fit the character.  I didn't find him particularly funny, though.  Diane Keaton was underused for someone with her comedic film experience.

...but she did get to live out her lifelong dream on the set.

The rest of the supporting cast was all fine, but nobody really stood out, aside from Ty Burrell's ridiculous (and short) performance.  Jeff Goldblum did a good Jeff Goldblum impression as Becky's boss, John Pankow revealed what happened to his character from The Secret of My Success, and perennial TV and movie weenie Matt Malloy played a fairly weenie-ish weatherman. 

I didn't particularly like this movie, but it certainly wasn't the fault of the actors.  I just didn't like the story.  It felt obvious in parts and emotionally manipulative in others.  When Harrison Ford's character does something that seems odd and not at all mean, you can bet that the act will be revealed to have a deeper meaning at a crucial moment in the plot.  I normally wouldn't mind that too much, but this film is not terribly comedic, romantic, or insightful into the morning TV business.  It has moments where the movie could have focused on any one of those subjects, but it never really commits to any.  It also bothered me that Ford's character is spot-on when he accuses Becky of being a workaholic with no friends and daddy issues.  I don't think any of those problems are completely solved by the film's resolution, and that bugged me.  I blame director Roger Michell for making a movie that has some interesting plot ideas, but doesn't really take a stand.

Then again, it is entirely possible that this is just not my kind of movie.  My wife liked it and I didn't grit my teeth through it, so there should be something to say for that.  I don't think I would watch it again, but I didn't need to drown my memory in whiskey after seeing this, either.  Overall, I think this is a pleasantly inoffensive movie that disappointed me with a lackluster plot and a solid, if misused, cast.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

One of the things about Sherlock Holmes stories that has always bothered me is the big reveal at the end.  More often than not, Holmes will figure out whatever secret the story requires relatively early in the plot, but will refuse to explain anything until the story is all but over.  It's not like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories were predictable by any means, so giving a hint here and there wouldn't hurt the story at all.  Instead, Holmes lectures Watson and the reader in an almost Jeff-Goldbloom-in-Independence-Day manner; his leaps in logic are enormous, the facts he spouts are obscure and unknown to any reader, and the facts that are given in the narrative are completely insufficient for any reader (even a detective) to reach the same conclusions independently.  As stories, I enjoy Holmes, but as mystery stories, I find their mockery insulting.

This movie, though, has the right idea.  Sherlock Holmes keeps the spirit of Doyle's best work, but manages to not be constrained by the source material.  This movie is the first Holmes film (to my knowledge) to have an original screenplay.  That means that even the most avid Holmes fan does not know what will happen next.  Brilliant!  Why didn't anyone think of this before?  I can imagine the pitch: "Umm...maybe, in this movie, the mystery can be one that wasn't written a hundred years ago?  Maybe?" 

Freed from the tethers of a predictable script, this movie really shines with its focus on the bromance between Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Dr. John Watson (Jude Law).  Yes, the plot is really about the nefarious scheming of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), but the bromance takes center stage.  This only works, though, because the two leads have great chemistry.  Downey's Holmes emphasizes the weird eccentricities of the character well, showing the brilliant as well as the crackpot aspects almost simultaneously.  The best moments with Holmes, though, were the simple ones.  For instance, his dinner date with Watson and Watson's fiance-to-be shed light on his character, from when he ordered his food (he timed it perfectly!) to the strain he endures due to his all too acute observation faculties.  Those were just great touches.  Jude Law was an interesting casting choice for Watson.  Oftentimes, Watson is portrayed on film as the quintessential sidekick to Holmes; he usually seems likable, but inferior to Holmes in every way except his ability to grow a mustache.  Here, he is intelligent, able, and very much Holmes' equal.  By making Holmes a little less omnipotent than usual and making Watson more competent, this film finally makes sense of their friendship.  The best parts of the film have these two arguing or helping each other out, in true best friend fashion.  Really, this feels more like a buddy flick than the typical wait-for-Holmes-to-explain-everything Sherlock mystery.  By having this film more character-based than plot-based, the filmmakers made this film more entertaining than any other Sherlock Holmes movie.

The plot here is relatively unimportant, since you know Holmes and Watson are going to solve an impossible mystery.  What is important, though, is the work of the supporting cast.  Mark Strong is a natural villain and his performance was on par with the two lead actors.  He wasn't fantastic, but he plays a respectable foil to Holmes' brilliance.  It is worth noting that Strong's character is an original creation for this film.  The supporting actresses, though, have their origins in Doyle's tales.  Rachel McAdams plays Irene Adler, the only woman to outwit Holmes ---twice! --- and thus, won his heart.  Kelly Reilly plays Mary, Watson's love.  Of the two, Reilly does a better job, adding assertiveness and some intelligence to a role that doesn't require much effort.  McAdams plays a femme fatale, but not very well.  Personally, I think she was miscast here.  The character is untrustworthy, clever, and sneaky.  When McAdams tries to portray these traits, she comes off as a sweet girl who abruptly becomes conniving with the flip of a switch.  If she played the role as a woman that was pretending to be nice, but was a stone cold bitch underneath, I might buy it.  Her abruptness, though, was off-putting.  Other key supporting performances by Hans Matheson and Eddie Marsan were a little more natural than McAdams', but more forgettable.

The blend of humor, action, and Britishness combine to make this easily the best film director Guy Ritchie has made since 2000's Snatch.  It has his trademarked slow-motion/fast-motion action, but Robert Downey Jr.'s narration over these scenes adds a pleasant new element to this standard trick for Richie.  The movie is well-paced and the character scenes show humor and even a little heart.  McAdams' acting indicates that Ritchie still hasn't quite figured out what to do with female main characters yet (Swept Away, anyone?), but he is definitely making strides toward becoming a more well-rounded storyteller.  The CGI used to make Old London was mostly well-used, although the climactic bridge scenes had some completely unnecessary zoom out with 360-degree camera rotation, a la Tony Scott.  Still, it is nice seeing Ritchie making fun movies again.

Was this a great film?  No, I wouldn't say that.  The main actors were a lot of fun to watch, but the supporting cast was a little lackluster.  The plot was decent, but forgettable.  Luckily, the movie focused on the Holmes-Watson friendship instead of the plot.  Fantastic detectives need fantastic mysteries to solve, after all, and an unimpressive mystery can only hinder a Sherlock Holmes tale.  To make up for this lack, the action and humor were turned up and used well.  That makes this a light, fun movie that serves as an excellent appetizer for a potentially awesome sequel.