Not technically a “best of” list, but here are some movies that I enjoyed this year that you might enjoy as well. As a disclaimer, most of them were made in 2008, but there are a few that were made earlier and didn’t receive a release until 2008 (or late 2007). Also as a disclaimer, there is one (major) spoiler for Burn After Reading.

8. Burn After Reading (2008)
7. Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
6. Speed Racer (2008)
5. The Fall (2006)
4. WALL·E (2008)
3. The Orphanage (2007)
2. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007)
1. Let the Right One In (2008)

8. Burn After Reading (2008) I never watched No Country for Old Men, Fargo, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and never made it through all of The Big Lebowski (not because I didn’t want to…the parts that I did see I enjoyed), so Burn After Reading was my first dose of the Coen brothers. So the plot is mildly ridiculous (read: bad) but serves as a decent enough background for the even more ridiculous (read: good) character development to take place. Except for Frances McDormand’s character, whom I absolutely could not stand throughout the whole thing. Seriously, how she was nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Actress for this role is beyond me. Otherwise the movie is well-paced, has no significant plot holes, and the comments that argue that it was an entirely stupid film…Well, it’s not trying to take itself seriously, nor does it purport to be that intelligent. Come on, how can you not laugh at Brad Pitt getting shot in the face in one of his most awesome performances ever? Seriously, I haven’t seen Benjamin Button but I wonder if he does as well in it as he does in Burn After Reading. Watch this movie if you want to laugh at stupidity.

7. Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008) The year’s Best Picture – Musical or Comedy according to the Golden Globes. Need I say more? Other than that Penélope Cruz is very gorgeous and very brilliant? Actually I’m too lazy to, so moving on…

6. Speed Racer (2008) Wow, yes, surprise, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It’s fun, mindless, and very pretty. It is very, very pretty. Even if everything starts looking the same after the first ten minutes, it’s still awesome. How can you go wrong with your basic good guy vs. bad guy story told in overloading color shine sparkles flash glitter? It doesn’t try to be better than what it is, which in all honesty is a film that an eight-year-old might love. It really shouldn’t be a film you sit and try to analyze and tear apart. Plus watching 비 (Rain) trying to speak English is just funny. Sorry.

5. The Fall (2006) Yeah, 2006. In my defense, it didn’t get its limited release in the US until May of 2008. I actually blogged about it after I watched it, and I still completely agree with the things I said in the post. It is visually stunning. The story is captivating. Catinca Untaru is one of those child actors that is just perfect in her role. If you like movies where it’s hard to tell between what’s real and what’s just in someone’s head (or is what’s in his head what’s actually real? *gasp*), you’ll probably enjoy this one. Then again, Hiemann liked it, and no one likes Hiemann’s taste in movies, so…

4. WALL·E (2008) Waaaaaaall-eeee. Eeeeevaaaaa. How beyooooooond adorable. Okay, to be honest, WALL·E did not even make this list until two weeks ago when I rewatched it with Joy. The first time I watched it, I wasn’t completely blown away. But then I realized I went in with pretty high expectations, and so I was underwhelmed by the time the end came around because I was just expecting more. But as I was watching it for the second time, I was actually able to just relax and enjoy it more since I already knew what was going to happen. I could just sit back and shriek “He’s sooooo cuuuute!” every ten minutes and have fun watching it. Which is what everyone should do. Yeah, even the shrieking. WALL·E, or E-wall, as PB likes to call him, is just a perfect combination of fun and cute.

3. The Orphanage (2007) Also known as El Orfanato, this Spanish horror film was produced by none other than Guillermo del Toro (among others). Like, Pan’s Labyrinth, ZOMG, one of my favorite movies ever. His name’s what caught my interest, and I almost went in expecting a horror version of Pan’s, and while that’s not exactly what it was, it was still really, really good. And really, really sad. Also really, really creepy (in an awesome way), but hey, I scare easily. The plot revolves around a woman named Laura and her search for her son, Simón, who claims to have met, in their new home, a boy named Tomás. And wow Tomás! You’re not creepy! So not creepy that Film School Rejects named you one of the top ten creepiest children in film! So anyway, after an argument with Laura, Simón goes missing. Strange events continue to ensue in the old house which is actually the orphanage in which Laura grew up. The clues and answers are revealed brilliantly, slowly, teasingly, and everything falls together all so nicely and so heartbreakingly. Seriously, watch this.

2. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) There’s no getting around it; also known as Le Scaphandre et le Papillon, this is a 2007 film. But it had a late 2007 US release and was one of the first movies I saw in 2008, so it is on this list. Four Oscar nominations, Palme d’Or nomination, and 98273 other wins and nominations. I don’t think anything I could say would do this movie justice. It has a wonderful atmosphere that’s thick and heavy with the realities of life but light and radiating with freaking hope and purpose. Also at the end of it you might sit there for a minute and think, What in the world have I done with my life? I mean, not that Vicky and I did, or anything. Based on his memoir of the same title, the movie is about Jean-Dominique Bauby and his life after he suffers a stroke that leaves his entire body paralyzed except his left eye. Imagine being fully capable of thinking all thoughts but being totally unable to move or speak. Jean-Dominique Bauby used to be the hotshot editor of Elle magazine, and out of nowhere he’s left completely bedridden and helpless. He actually wrote his entire memoir by blinking his eye as his speech therapist read out a list of letters; when she got to the right letter he would blink, and in this way he would spell out words. A lot of the movie is shown as if from his point of view, that is, what he sees and hears, immobile, from his hospital bed, and not only does it provide for some beautiful, unique shots, it’s pretty harrowing to actually think about. Imagine not being able to swat away a fly or turn off a TV that someone has left on a static channel while you’re trying to sleep. Yikes.

1. Let the Right One In (2008) The easiest way to describe this movie is to say “Swedish vampire film.” But Låt den rätte komma in is so much more than that. It blew my mind. It’s a heartbreaking, heartwarming love story between two kids, and it just so happens that one of them is a vampire. Oskar’s just this bullied little boy until Eli comes along, and the instant he meets her, he’s intrigued. She is a beautiful, smart, mysterious, 200-year-old child. There’s some backstory that the film doesn’t cover completely; you can read it all in the book upon which the movie is based (novel and screenplay are both by John Ajvide Lindqvist), but it’s not necessary for your total enjoyment of the film.

To be fair, I find the whole of idea of vampires fascinating for some reason (no, I have neither read nor seen Twilight), but all three people I saw it with loved it too, despite missing the 10 o’clock showing and not being able to watch it until midnight. I can’t quite put my finger on why it’s so good. Maybe it’s the gorgeous cinematography. Maybe it’s the contradiction of dark subject matter with kids who should be innocent. Maybe it’s the amalgam of genres it combines, or defies, depending on how you look at it: mystery, horror, suspense, thriller, romance. And the ending! Oh-so-disturbing, but oh-so-satisfying. If you have made it this far through my post, I sincerely commend and thank you and encourage you to watch Let the Right One In. No, really.

Lo que haría una mujer cuarentona por obtener una cirugía plástica!

Domingo 1:15pm y ya sentado en mi butaca de Cinepolis esperando arranque esta película de los hermanos Coen. Las expectativas que tenía estaban puestas con una buena plantilla de actores:
George Clooney
Francis McDormand
John Malkovich
Tilda Swinion
Brad Pitt
Y claro la dirección de los hermanos Joel y Ethan Coen, pero me preguntaba si no sería una rara película con final igual a No country for old men.

Burn After Reading

Puedo decirles que los primeros 20 minutos estaba arrepentido de haber pagado un boleto por ver esta película, razón por lo que fui de matinée para que no me doliera el bolsillo los 30 pesos que me costo en esa hora.

Pero las tonterías y el personaje de Brad Pitt hacia que me detuviera y esperar que podía darse, y así fue. Cuando inicia su escena con la sorpresa de haber encontrado un CD y la bola de sandeces que dice, me hace pensar que se está armando un lio tremendo y divertido. Aunado su visita nocturna a su amiga a hacerla de buen samaritano para devolver el disco y convertirse en extorsionadores de la guerra fría. Creo que no había vista un asesinato tan absurdo y una cara tan estúpida de él desde 12 monos.
(Se me antoja tener esa mirada como Avatar en mi Messenger  jejejejeejeje)

La película es recomendada para los que tienen estomago y ganas de ver una película de la cual no esperes ningún mensaje o final con sentido, recuerden: Fargo y No country for old men no tienen un final sensato.

Recomendación para esperarla en video y verla en noches entre semana y en pedacitos.

Esta pel��cula me ha resultado maravillosa. Por muchas razones. Una de ellas es la forma en la que se hace una comedia de franco humor negro y con una cr�tica profunda a los m�s altos estamentos de lo que es llamado “la inteligencia”, y que en esta pel�cula no lo es mucho la verdad. La actuaci�n de Malkovich, la actuaci�n de Pitt, el absurdo completo de la situaci�n y de las razones y visiones de cada personaje para hacer lo que hace. Es una fant�stica forma de mostrar el caos, es una forma muy cr�tica de exagerar una cotidiana y desesperada sociedad actual. Es llenar de situaciones extremas lo que pasa a diario en la calle para decirnos con un humor negro muy negro, que somos una sociedad en riesgo permanente de crisis por nuestra dependencia infinita a nuestros deseos personales de satisfacci�n y nuestras prioridades individuales que distorsionan muchas veces el equilibrio de los que nos rodean y que pueden estar relacionados de forma directa con nosotros, o no lo est�n y simplemente sufren las consecuencias finales de cada cosa que hacemos y que tiene, como en casi todos los casos, un efecto colectivo en nuestra comunidad.

Muy trascendental en el an�lisis…ve�nla y me cuentan. Muy buena comedia negra. Ojo al papel de Frances McDormand.

So, the Coens are back. I’m a little suprised to see a new Coen film at the cinema so soon, a mere nine months since ‘No Country For Old Men’ and quite a different beast, a straightforward comedic movie purposely selected in an attempt I expect to exorcise the darkness of their Oscar winning career highlight. I walked over to the Greenwich Picture House to catch this as the weather was good which strikes another flickhouse from my list of places to visit, it’s a very well equipped cinema with a good sized screen, reasonable sound, proper comfy reclining seats and most of important of all an attentive and quiet audience. Ideal.

‘Burn After Reading‘ has a cast so diverse it sounds like its escaped from a Woody Allen project – George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, Francis McDormand, Richard Jenkins, John Malkovich, J.K Simmons, David Rasche and, err…oh yeah some pretty boy called Brad Pitt who’s actually pretty good in this to be fair. Disgruntled CIA agent Osbourne Cox (Malkovich) is fired from the bumbling bureau and deciding to exact revenge writes his scandalous memoirs which embarrassingly divulges many of the firms more recent intelligence failures. The disk containing the incendiary revelations inadvertently falls into the hands of two narcissistic health club employees Chad and Linda (Pitt and McDormand) who hatch a badly planned and inept blackmail scheme, biting off far more than they can chew by taking on the experienced and furious Cox. Meanwhile serial Lothario Harry (Clooney) is having an affair with both Cox’s wife Katie (Swinton) and McDormand’s character Linda (yeah, OK it gets a little convoluted), Harry’s already paranoid tendencies accelerated by well founded fears of being under covert scrutiny. Suffice to say, the various characters intersect at various points throughout the plot in that characteristic Coen neo-screwball comedy fashion, culminating in a satisfying compendious finale. 

I enjoyed this, for a comedy it passed the five out laugh out loud moments test and breezily meandered along whilst keeping you guessing at where the story was going. The stand out performances in such a illustrious cast I thought were Francis McDormand who turns in her best performance since ‘Fargo‘ (a quick aside, did you hear about this weird and sad story?) and a positively incandescent John Malkovich who got all the best lines. There was one quinessential unexpected Coen movie moment which had the audience laughing in shock and a final wrap-up scene which I found hilarious so I simply cannot agree with the criticisms that after the majestic achievements of ‘Old Country’ it’s a real disappointment to see the guys turn in such a superficial movie. I really do think they are recharging the batteries artistically speaking before tackling their next movie, a complex project by all accounts that will require the full application of their prodigious talents. 

‘You know, for kids‘. Following Paul Newman’s death I was urged to revisit ‘The Hudsucker Proxy’, one of his more successful screen appearances in the nineties, a decision compounded with the arrival of the NFT’s November programme which details an inspired retrospective of all the Coen movies double-billed with some of their classical Hollywood influences – think ‘The Big Lebowski‘ with ‘The Big Sleep‘, ‘Millers Crossing‘ with ‘I Walk Alone‘, you get the drill. ‘Hudsucker’ is worth another look – heck, any film with Jennifer Jason Leigh and Ash in it usually are, although I would concur that the Sturges and Capra influences do become a bit forced and over-wrought. Still, some terrific design and amusing moments make it worth another couple of hours of your time, here’s some more Coen’s to wrap things up.

Sadly there are few places in this country where one can go to the movies, have a pint of beer and have a waiter come bring you food. Luckily, in Seattle, we happen to have one of those places. This place is Central Cinema. Also it is one of Seattle’s few truly independant theaters, not part of any chain (as much as I love Landmark Theaters, they are hindered by their chainedness). As such it doesn’t get the new mainstream releases but instead divides it’s time between super low budget films and old movies. In this case I went to see the very first film by the notorious Coen Brothers. I am, of course, talking about Blood Simple.

Over the years the Coens have always had a reputation for snappy dialogue and visual flair. However this film bears more in common with their recent No Country for Old Men in that it is very subdued and somber. It has some humor, certainly more than No Country, but it is still very much in the realm of film noir.

I don’t want to ruin any of the mystery and intrigue for anyone who hasn’t seen it, but the plot centers around a jealous bar owner (Dan Hedaya) who hires a dective (M Emmett Walsh) to spy on his wife (Francis McDormand in her first role). Turns out she’s sleeping with one of the bartenders (John Getz). Having found this out he rehires the detective to murder the adulterous pair. . . and this hardly scratches the surface of what the plot is.

Walsh’s detective, Loren Visser, states in the opening monologue, “-down here, you’re on your own.” This very much sets up the method in which the story is told. Everybody has their own perception of what is going on and very much on different pages from one another. Jealousy, suspicion, and betrayal is what this story really boils down to.

As the first film from Joel and Ethan Coen, there are certainly some rough spots around the edges. Some of the shots don’t feel quite right, the editing has some choppy moments, and I’m not sure a lot of the sound came out to what they would have preferred. But don’t worry, this film will still kick your ass and take names.

The cinematography was done by Barry Sonnenfeld. Most people know Barry for his directing but where they should be looking at is his photography. As a Cinematographer he shot the early Coen films up through Miller’s Crossing as well as such films as Throw Momma From the Train, When Harry Met Sally, Misery, and Big. Sure, there were a few others but these are films that all had a strong visual sensibility and were all incredibly popular. Even though I love the work that the Coens have done with DP Roger Deakins, there’s no doubt that Sonnenfeld set the stage for the Coens’ visual style even to this day. As a director he gave us The Addams Family, Get Shorty, and Big Trouble. Those were okay but I don’t think that clears his name for Men in Black 1 & 2, RV, & Wild Wild West.

One amazing constant that has remained through all the Coen films is composer, Carter Burwell. I can’t say enough nice things about this guy, he was one of the composers that inspired me to begin writing music my own self. While many of his scores are very textural and rich this one is very stark. He relies on a minimal instrumentation, mostly centered around the piano. It has the sound of the unease and isolation these characters feel. Listen for yourself:

Not bad for a first-time composer (yes, this was his first film). Now let’s talk about the actors.

Francis McDormand as Abbey

“I ain’t done nothin’ funny.”

Okay, this woman rocks. Sure, this is not her defining role and really most of what she gets to do is act uneasy and sort of frightened. . . but she will have your applause at some point in this film.

John Getz as Ray

“If you point a gun at someone, you’d better make sure you shoot him, and if you shoot him you’d better make sure he’s dead, because if he isn’t then he’s gonna get up and try to kill you.”

Now this is sort of weird. John Getz gets the leading man role in this movie. As I was growing up I mostly grew up watching him play sleazeballs and dirtbags in such films as Curley Sue, Men at Work, Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead, and even as recently as 2004 in A Day Without a Mexican. But, as I found out, this is because he’s a gifted character actors, and those folks that get to play the creeps even though they’re talented enough to be the lead.

Ray starts off as very calm, collected, and emotionally distant. Throughout the movie he begins to show the tension in his eyes. It’s an amazing transition to see on screen, especially when you assume that these scenes were likely not shot in order of one another.

Dan Hedaya as Julian

“You know… in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news.”

Okay, you’ve all seen this guy. Whether it be in Joe Vs. the Volcano, Clueless, The Usual Suspects, or what seems to be about a trillion other titles, you’ve seen this guy. Usually guys who are pretty high strung and kind of mean. You’ve seen him lose his temper on screen, I’m sure. What I don’t think is as apparent as how good this guy is at taking all that anger and just bottling it. Julian’s jealousy and rage takes place under the skin. He seethes, but he’s probably the most subdued character in the whole movie.

Many actors could have portrayed him as a character you love to hate. Instead you just kind of feel bad for him. Well done, sir.

M. Emmett Walsh as Loren

“Well, if the price is right. . . I’ll do it.”

Okay, this is Walsh’s movie. He’s not the lead character, but this is his movie. He’s the man on the outside, the observer. He keeps the plot moving and has all the best lines (and one heck of an automobile ornament). He’s your typical amoral laid back texan detective character. You just can’t help but like this guy. I’m sort of amazed that he hasn’t appeared in more Coen Films (except for a bit part in Raising Arizona). Actually, let me just give you the opening to the film to explain what I mean:

Okay, so we know what I think of the film. . . but how was the experience?

Well never before have I been given a menu as soon as I paid for my ticket, sort of bizarre but that’s how it went. We were ushered into the screening room where we would wait for service. We had about 20 minutes before the film started during which was an endless stream of Betty Boop cartoons. No slideshow, no commercials, just Betty Boop cartoons. It was entertaining as hell, I must say. . . certainly gets a person in the mood to watch a dark film like Blood Simple.

While you can order a variety of things like pizza, salad, sandwiches, a hummus platter. . . yeah, the list goes on. But I wanted to stick with the classic: buttered popcorn. But along with that I had a Mac & Jack’s Amber. . . a MOTHERFUCKING GLASS OF BEER IN A MOVIE THEATER! HOLY SHIT! Okay, beer and movies at home you expect, and beer at restaurants. . . no, this was a fucking movie theater! I felt like Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction; I went into a movie theater and ordered a beer, and I don’t mean like no paper cup I’m talking about a GLASS of beer.

Because this is an independant theater, they made it pretty clear from the getgo that they could do whatever the fuck they wanted. And what they wanted to do was play a ton of little short films before the movie. I liked the one about a mafia-esque organization forcibly breaking up bad relationships. Of course, this meant the movie didn’t really start for about 30 minutes after the starting time. Not the worst thing that could happen but when you’re drinking beer you gotta take a break after a while if you catch my meaning. Luckily they had thought of this ahead of time by way of having an INTERMISSION. Yeah, how often do you see a film with an intermission. Thank you, Central Cinema.

Oh yes, and when the credits stopped rolling, the brought up the house music just like any regular theater. But the difference was instead of playing some top forty bullshit the first track we got was Tom Waits singing Bad Liver and a Broken Heart!

Do evenings get better? Not often.

-Z

OK, so here’s an e-mail exchange I inadvertently got involved with yesterday. Tell me if you think I did the right thing.

A good friend of mine, a liberal like myself, sent me and several other people the following image via e-mail:

(I should mention that she has been married for fifteen years to a Republican. He has friends. Sometimes my girlfriend likes to goad them.)

Anyway. Funny, in a passing way. I paid virtually no attention.

A little later I, and everyone else on the original list, got the following response:

I love it!! It bothers all you Libs that the Republicans have a strong, aggressive, qualified woman to go on their ticket. Yes, Palin made it and Hillary didn’t, get over it!! It is also so typical of your party to continue to belittle her even after she has proven she is very capable. OK, so she is being compared to Homer Simpson, what about your Curious George looking Presidential candidate who is a straight Socialist and wants to take from those who have succeeded to give to those who have no interest in bettering themselves and just suck off the system. Wow, now that is logic. That is about as unAmerican as anything I have ever seen and you want him to lead. Pathetic and you might want to rethink what you are doing. I know it is the California thing to do, but for the good of your childrens future, you might want to actually research your candidate.

Yikes! Almost immediately one of the other girls on the list fired back with this:

In the future, please refrain from hitting reply all with this type of commentary which frankly I find incredibly ignorant and offensive.
If in the future you wish to share your opinion or viewpoint, please respect the privacy and views of others and direct reply only.
Thank you.

At which point I, indignant, possibly fired up by hormones, and certainly fuelled by the great joy I find in raising the flame on incipient dramas, added the following:

I don’t know you, and therefore am not sure why I was made privy to your very personal response, but I would have to second the previous request that you not “reply all” when sending offensive e-mails. I might add the friendly suggestion that when writing explicitly racist content, (Obama as a monkey, um…aren’t you embarrassed to say that kind of thing out loud?) you consider not subsequently sending that content out to a good-sized group of people you don’t know. You never know who is on the receiving end.

And to anticipate your response, comparing Palin to a Simpson character, the latter of whom has no negative, historically laden racial or ethnographic stereotypes associated with him, is not the same thing.

I, for one, have no interest in trying to disabuse someone like you of your undoubtedly long-held and precious beliefs. Oughtn’t those you disagree with receive the same courtesy?

I then took Mina for a walk in Elysian. About halfway through the walk, which was perfectly lovely — ideal temperature, filtered sunlight, good stick for throwing — I suddenly got it in my head that I had behaved utterly inappropriately. What if the guy I’d sent the e-mail to took enormous offense at being called a racist in front of twenty other people, including my friend and her husband? What if he took my name from my e-mail address and looked me up? What if he came to my house? In an alternative paranoid fantasy, my girlfriend called me on the phone and told me she could no longer be my friend, as I had behaved impetuously and cruelly towards her dear…I don’t know, nephew? Brother? I had, after all, no clue who the guy in question was. Maybe he was her father! Jesus. Why can I not just learn to shut my mouth? Or in this case, my fingers. Who needed me inserting my opinion, anyway? And in such a highhanded fashion! Talk about self-righteousness! At the very least I should’ve just replied to him, not everyone. In so doing I had basically stooped to his level. And grandstanded. I’m such an idiot.

And the self-flagellation continued, effectively ruining what should have been a nice walk. Mina, knowing I was distracted, eventually gave up on trying to get my attention, and satisfied herself with running through every mud puddle she could find, as she continued her lifetime quest to become the filthiest dog on the North American continent.

I returned home and checked my cell phone messages apprehensively. Nothing. Then my e-mail. I found this from the girl who’d sent the original response to the asshole guy (by now I am referring to him as “Curious George” in my head) :

Nice work, Sister.

Holla.

xo

Sorry all that my used to be friend offended all. He’s been sending me all this awful Obama stuff that I delete and so I sent out this joke about Palin. I should be above making fun of her but I’m not, I can’t stand her. Please forgive me for having your email addresses on here, I’ll never do that again.
I’m sorry that I can’t defend G—– either, he’s an ignorant Southern republican man.

How terrible to actually listen to other views.
By the way, if you want to learn more about your candidate, watch Hannity’s America on Sunday night. They are doing an in depth history of Obama’s rise to power. You might find it interesting.

Have the Coen brothers done it again or should this one be shelved?

Read my review HERE.

Burn After Reading is the new film from Joel and Ethan Coen, who have now made 13 of my favorite movies. Since I enjoy their movies so much I thought I would just write a response to their newest film rather than trying to produce a polished review.

A lot of people are trying to decide where this fits into the Coens’ repertoire. I think it is like a combination of Fargo and Intolerable Cruelty. It is not one of their best films, but neither is it their worst. Combined with No Country it goes a long way towards showing that the Coens are far from spent.

The plot basically deals with three total blunderers (George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Francis McDormand), one laid-off, low-level CIA boozer (John Malkovich), and his heart-of-stone wife (Tilda Swinton). A sort of misunderstanding, a little greed, some paranoia, and the fact that everyone is sleeping with everyone creates a mess that becomes a minor CIA crisis. The plot is very complex, but as the whole crisis is really nothing, it just kind of clears up on its own, leaving several dead and a few more wondering what just happened.

While the film is getting generally positive reviews some of the criticisms say it is ultimately hollow and has no compassion for its characters. I just enjoyed it so much that I didn’t feel that way, but I think the criticism is fair. I also think that it is a little harsh, and fails to understand the Coens’ intentions. I always get the impression that they really want you to enjoy their films as much as they seem to enjoy making them. If you don’t do this you won’t be able to tell what they are up to and might come out thinking they are hollow and cruel. Burn After Reading is not really cruel but a total farce, and not really hollow, but a send-up of hollowness.

Since it is such a farce I have to ask myself what makes this film good? I saw Pineapple Express recently, that was definitely a farce too, but despite some pretty good laughs I thought it was ultimately a bad film. I certainly thought Burn After Reading was funnier, but that might just be an issue of taste. All the technical elements are perfect–the Coens and their casts are just so good at making films. But still, it seems to me that there must be a greater, almost moral reason to recommend Burn After Reading over the masses of other comedies that are made.

I will say this–Burn After Reading is smarter than most comedies. I do not mean this in an elitist way, rather I mean that it will not make you stupider for having watched it. Mike Myer’s films and some recent Will Ferrell movies come to mind here. These movies have extremely low expectations of their audiences and do them a disservice by feeding them the most artificial and processed laughs – the filmic equivalent of Twinkies. The Coens have high expectations of their audience and do not dumb down plot and dialogue. I think that by doing this they actually give people a chance to learn in a strange unquantifiable way by watching their movies–even such a zany farce as Burn. I am not saying it is like eating wheat grass, but it is at least like eating homemade cookies with real butter and sugar.

Another thing the Coens do is let nobody off the hook. In Pineapple Express the characters are obviously morons, but ultimately the film confirms their lifestyle. It says, ‘If you get nervous just dump your girl, that’s OK… Bros are more important, and you’ll get over it anyway, plus she was a terrible person… You, on the other hand, make mistakes but you’re mostly a good guy… Weed sure does get us in serious trouble, but hey it feels good, and besides without weed life would be boring, we wouldn’t have all these fun times and crazy stories to tell.’ That is all a lie, and very insidious because it is buried in the film’s subtext. The Coens, on the other hand, are the only people making comedies in which the characters have to face the consequences of their actions. As a result of their idiocy and selfishness – people die. When we watch Burn After Reading, we can relate to the absurdity of human sin, and even feel for the characters, but not for a second are we allowed to think that what they are doing is really OK. The absurdity won’t allow it. In Pineapple Express the absurdity gives way to a nice little ‘moral of the story’ at the end. It all turns out OK, and we walk out of the theatre probably wishing we had some friends who wanted to go get stoned. But when we walk out of a Coens’ film, we do it shaking our heads, chuckling, and thinking, ‘Oh how we delude ourselves.’ 

Thanks guys…

Brad Pit and Geroge Clooney are two lucky guys. Right now they are in Venice and they are enjoying early positive reviews for their tag team effort “Burn After Reading.” Directed by the notorious Cohen brothers Ethan and Joel, this film reunites Clooney and “Fargo” star Francis McDormand with the Academy Award-winning team of directors.

This film looks hilarious. Clooney plays a federal marshall whose unfaithfulness to his wife brings him in contact with a gym instructor (PItt) who is trying to blackmail a former CIA agent whose memoirs have gone missing. I’m not going to tell you any more about the film, because to be honest, I hate it when people tell me tou much about a story. I prefer to be clueless (at least when I watch a movie).

A new Coen brothers movie already!? I chose this trailer randomly from the list on apple.com/trailers, and was shocked to see the Coens’ name there – No Country for Old Men came out less than a year ago, and it’s rare to see writers/directors of their stature putting out movies in such rapid succession.

This is actually the second trailer of this movie to be released. The first was very similar, but didn’t have the white-letters-over-black-screen names like this one has (something that I happen to like a lot).

Another notable difference was the song. The new trailer has a great song (“Grounds for Divorce” by English band Elbow) that doesn’t get heard in the old trailer until halfway through. If you watch the old trailer (which can be found here), it shows a lot more of what goes on in the movie, except it’s so quick most of it doesn’t really make sense. So I guess the trailer makers figured what the hell, we have an amazing cast and an Oscar-winning writer/director team, so why don’t we just promote the hell out of them. The result is title cards that look like this:

That’s really all you need to know.

INTRO

A notable similarity between the two trailers is the intro. It presents the plot in a quick scene capped with a punch line (listen carefully at the end for an obvious dubbing of “CIA stuff”). Then the music kicks in and we get a couple more plot-developing scenes. Brad Pitt has something (CIA “stuff”) of John Malkovich’s, and he and Francis McDormand are working together to blackmail him in exchange for cash. Sound familiar? It should, because it’s The Big Lebowski.

I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the Coen brothers that they wouldn’t make the same movie twice, but this trailer gives a strong, Lebowski-esque impression. Especially in the scene in the car with Pitt and Malkovich when Pitt shouts “Give us the money!” Sounds exactly the same. I also trust the Coens to make a quality movie – we’re not exactly talking about ripping off “Gigli” here, The Big Lebowski is one of the all time greats. But if we’re expected to make the same connection with Brad Pitt as we did with The Dude, the Coens are greatly mistaken.

The rest of the trailer is a highlight reel for the ridiculous cast this movie has – and really, what more do you need. You’ve got the Coen Brothers names lined up with this cast, who gives a shit what the movie is about. HERE’S MY MONEY!

And what, no name slide for J.K. Simmons? That guy is a hot commodity now! They could have at least compromised with “JUNO’S DAD”.

Following the Coen Brothers slide the trailer gets interesting again. We get this great still of what appears to be a live action Stonecutters meeting from The Simpsons:

And what follows is basically a low-intensity action trailer, somewhat similar to how I described the trailer for The Darjeeling Limited, quick shots but a bit longer (long enough to show movement). Examples:

And most frightening of all, a starring role for female Conan O’Brien, Tilda Swinton:

The resemblance is uncanny.

Following those clips are more hilarious remarks from J.K. Simmons (name slide worthy! Are you listening Coens?), and a final flurry of clips, these even shorter and more appropriate for an action film trailer (the title card comes in the middle):

I can only hate on the Coens so much – this is a good trailer. And it’s much better than the first, so clearly they understand what they’re doing and showing improvement. I legitimately want to see this movie now – it’s got a great cast, looks funny but also shows some potential to be a dark comedy or an action comedy. Let’s just hope we don’t end up with t-shirts with Brad Pitt’s face on them that say “The Dude” or people quoting the epic line “You don’t fuck with the McDormand.”

Ever since No Country for Old Men, I’ve had a hardon for the Coen Brothers. Though I had seen O Brother Where Art Thou before knowing their names, No Country was truly my first Coen Brothers film. I knew who they were at that point…

And, with Blood simple., I have completely fallen head over heels in love with their works. (Well, okay, except the Ladykillers. That movie sucked.)

Blood simple is anything but simple. When Abby (I guess Frances McDormand was hot when she was younger. Who the hell knew) and Ray start fooling around at random, there’s already a Private Investigator hired to follow her. Abby’s husband, Marty, doesn’t know who she’s fuckin’ around with, but he senses she’s fuckin’ around. It just so happens that he’s right.

So the Private Investigator is hired to kill the two of them for $10,000. But instead of doing that, he fakes a photograph of their deaths and attempts to shoot Marty. And things just get crazier from there. I refuse to let on anything beyond that because I’d ruin most of the suspense (and there is a shit load).

What so beautiful about this movie is how nobody knows what anybody’s doing. They think they do, but they say all the wrong things and run into trouble because of it. The wrong gun is left in the wrong place. The wrong money is not taken. Everything just goes wrong. Everything just gets fucked up.

And maybe that’s a testament to Eastern Texans. Or maybe it’s just the type of people the Coen Brothers like to make movies about: people getting waist deep in shit when they can only really handle it up to the palms of their feet. It was the same thing with Fargo and Hudsucker Proxy (though that one turned out much better) and the Big Lebowski. People demand revenge but then forget why. It’s pretty awesome in that way.

And on top of the content being superb, I absolutely loved the cinematography. The way the camera moves in this movie is brilliant. It keeps the angles close and claustrophobic enough for one to wonder what’s around the corner. It hints enough that you almost know what’s coming.

It really is amazing that this was their first feature film. It’s very well done and it has all shades of Coen auteurity (sic) to come. Some people say that it comes off as a “video movie,” or a “Movie of the week” because of how straight forward the noir-plot is. But, at the same time, the Coens do as they usually do and take the basics and toss its salad until its barely recognizable.

Plus, it’s pretty goddam funny.

Genre: Romantic Comedy

Tagline: Every woman will have her day

Ebert gives it: again, I saw one he didn’t

So I just recently relocated to NYC, the big apple and this was the first movie I went and saw by myself since I moved. Let me tell you – the theatre was PACKED!! And I had to sit next to to old biddies who kept saying ‘huh?” Annoyance. But it didn’t stop me from enjoying a light hearted comedy about romance in the time of war. No, no, no Atonement here – the war is more of a background fear…we see it the same way the young people in the movie see it.Guinevere Pettigrew (Francis McDormand) has found herself unemployed yet again and out on the street. After wandering around like a homeless, hopeless bag lady (minus the bag) she steals a job from her employment agency to assist miss Delysia LaFosse (Amy Adams), a lounge singer with big dreams and a pocket full of boys. Delysia hire Miss Pettigrew on the spot after she helps her out of a pickle with her quick thinking and wit. Miss Pettigrew is whisked away into the world of money, fashion and silencing hearts. As the story unfolds we see that Delysia has some choices to make, between her one true love or her fake love and career. Miss Pettigrew learns about pretending and teaches an important lesson about follow your heart.This doesn’t seem like a movie I would enjoy, but I really did. Amy Adams is one of my favorite actresses right now (She had me at Junebug). There is something about her doelike eyes and red hair and this movie uses those two assets to play up her character who must flirt to get out of so many problems. I also love, love, LOVE Frances McDormand and this is a great part for an aging actress (I know, I know…but it is totally true – that’s Hollywood) The music and cinematography sweep you into a world that is tiptoeing on the line of World War II, a war that the younger generation doesn’t believe will happen and that stirs up old memories for their elders.This movie doesn’t get deep, there is nothing profound or overly exciting about it. It’s just a good flick to get lost in, plus there is this really cute boy who plays the piano. His name is Lee Pace, and he is the star of this mediocre show called Pushing Daisies (just kidding coworker!) He is yummy and I love him. The music, the costumes, the characters – what’s not to love. Every once in a while you need to see a movie that is just filled with good feeling. Those tragic war love stories have been done and yes they are sad and/or glorious, but they take a lot out of you. Miss Pettigrew gives you a break and shows you what life was like before the tragedy hit, what the golden years were like when it was all about cocktails and piano bars – and you know I wouldn’t mind living a love story like that.

My Rating: Yeah I might lose some street cred with that, but I wish I had a Miss Pettigrew to teach me a lesson about being myself, following my heart and finding love…(it’s ok, I’m gagging a little too – but a movie that makes ME feel warm and squishy inside must be working some kind of magic)