Review: Moon (DVD)

It has been a long time since I've actually reviewed a movie on here, and for good reason - it's been a long time since I've actually sat down and watched a movie. Trying to get through all the Oscar movies is a bit of movie overload, so right after it every year I seem to need a post-Oscar movie break, so I just slow down a little on my movie watching, but the Netflix keep coming in and I have a couple of good movies saved on my DVR AND I'm plugging away at watching "Pushing Daisies" at night, and once that's done with, I'll get back to watching more movies.

And this brings me to the movie I watched this afternoon, "Moon." I hadn't heard of "Moon" until I watched the BAFTAs which are Britain's equivalent of the Oscars, and it won the award for Best Debut by a Brit for Director Duncan Jones (who PS is David Bowie's son!) I didn't quite know what to expect but I thought this movie was great.

It was kind of in the same vein as "Alien", with a dash of "District 9", a good portion of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the tiniest part "The Parent Trap" minus the humor and musical number.  The plot concerns Sam Bell, played by a fantastic Sam Rockwell, who faced quite a challenge with this part and was phenomenal. Anyways, Sam Bell works for Lunar, a company who mines Helium from the Moon and sends it back to Earth, providing 70% of the Earth's power. He is up there all by himself and towards the end of his three year contract with the company. He can't wait to get back to Earth to see his wife and new little girl, until when he's out harvesting and gets in a crash. Suddenly he wakes back up in the infirmary under the care of the station's talking and emoting robot, GERTY, voiced by none other than Kevin Spacey, who nurses Sam back to some sort of health. When Sam heads out to the Harvester he crashed into, he discovers the dying body of none other than himself. I'm not going to give the rest away, but the mystery was enough to intrigue me, and even though I could see what was coming for the most part, I loved the whole "is he going crazy? is this really happening? what is going on?" vibe of the story. In the end, not everything is revealed - you're left to either pick up on the subtle clues or to draw your own conclusions, but the movie doesn't make you think super hard, which I appreciate, especially on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

I really like this psychology approach to science fiction. When most sci-fi recently has been fighting aliens on foreign planets or transforming robots that have wars with each other, there have been refreshing science fiction like "Moon" or "District 9" that go into the psychology of the characters or who offer up messages - it's smart science fiction.

Sam Rockwell was brilliant in this movie. I have maybe only seen him in one or two other movies, and he's always a good actor, but this movie is HIS movie. Literally, the cast only has 10 people in it, and 8 of them are only shown on video monitors for a few minutes combined, and the other 1 is just the voice of a robot. Without giving too much away, Rockwell acts against himself for the majority of the movie (thus "The Parent Trap" similarities) but never once do you think he's not acting with nobody there.

I probably would've never seen this movie if it didn't pique my interest on the BAFTAs but I'm glad I watched it, and now I'm highly recommending it to you too.


Patrick Approval Rating: 9/10


"Moon" @ imdb

Review: Network (DVD)

One of the reasons I got Netflix last year was to catch up on a list movies I should have seen as a movie fan, but haven't yet. So my queue is filled with new and future releases as well as some old classic films, films like 1976's "Network." I knew little about "Network" other than it starred William Holden (who is in one of my favorite classics, "Sunset Blvd.") and Faye Dunaway ( knowing it won a couple of Oscars, most notably a posthumous one for Peter Finch, and that is was way ahead of its time and speaks volumes about todays TV networks.

I know I personally have a lot of issues with the majority of the movies released during the late 1960s/1970s for some reason. I don't know if it was the type of film they used back then, or the style of cinematography, but I don't like the way a lot of them look. Prior to this period, the movies are all in technicolor wonderfulness and somewhere in the early 80s they changed things, but these movies released in the 70s look and often feel very dated to me. "Network" swings both ways here.

Though the film may look dated in certain places, it certainly doesn't feel like it is. The story is surprisingly very relevant to today, with our current TV culture of 24/7 network news stations that sometimes make up news to make news (Balloon Boy 2009 anybody?) or where shows that are based in "reality" are not really "reality" and destroy the show's targets (see the self-destruction of Jon and Kate's marriage because of their fame.) At times I couldn't believe the movie was written in the 70s. So either writer Paddy Chayefsky was psychic OR real TV network execs saw this movie and decided it would be a good idea to everything that the movie was saying wrong.

The network referred to in "Network" is the fourth place, ratings challenged, and floundering UBS, who's evening news is the lowest rated show and so they decide to fire the current news anchor, Howard Beale (played by an intensely crazy Peter Finch, who infamously died between the filming of the movie and winning his Oscar for it.) So Beale goes on a bender on how sucky life is and ends up telling everybody in America over the news that he is going to kill himself on air and to get off their couches, go out to window and scream "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" So they do because he speaks to the inner anguish of the viewers, and so a man with a serious mental problem ends up becoming a national superstar and saves the UBS Network. Some other key players include a wonderfully ruthless, young, you-know-what executive played by Faye Dunaway who also won an Oscar for this part. It's so nice to see her be subtle because the last movie I watched her in was "Mommie Dearest" and that's anything but subtle. Her character is the one who capitalizes on Beale's insanity. William Holden, who got SO old between making this movie and "Sunset Blvd" plays the voice of reason at the network and doesn't like what is happening with Beale. And then the crazy-ass ending where everything goes just a bit too far and the executives decide to kill Beale on the air, and I was kind of left in shock, just because it shows how far people will go for ratings or for entertainment. Here's an example from a couple years ago: Anna Nicole Smith. Someone with serious issues, exploited for TV, and she ends up dead. How this movie know this sort of stuff would happen?!

The plot is way more complicated than what I typed out, and I admit some of the dialogue went WAY over my head, but I did like this movie. The performances of the entire cast really made it awesome. Perhaps not as one of the greatest movies ever made, as it's been called, but I did think it's a very good classic, and an important film.


Patrick Approval Rating: 8/10

"Network" @ imdb

Review: Inglourious Basterds (DVD)

Finally I've finally seen all of the Best Picture nominees! I didn't succeed in seeing all nominated actor and actresses this year, but I saw more than I thought I would, and I set my goal for only seeing the Best Picture nominees this year, so I'm proud of myself nontheless.

And here it is, the final movie I had to see, Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds." So sue me, I'm not a gigantic fan of Tarantino. At least I never thought I was. I hadn't (and still haven't) seen a majority of his movies, with the only exception being "Death Proof" from "Grindhouse," and even that, though I like it, isn't my favorite of the two "Grindhouse" movies. So maybe it's not that I'm not a huge fan, but rather I hadn't given him a chance. Like at all. I assumed I wouldn't like his movies, so I never bothered to see them. I wrote them off as being too violent - which they are - but the violence is done with a smirk. It's not a bang bang shoot them all up and drive in fast cars with guns movie, it's an artfully done violence that kind of makes me smile. I can't describe it.

I've read other critics say that Tarantino purposefully makes you laugh during his movies in places that aren't really supposed to be funny. Like after a Nazi gets his head beaten in with a baseball bat! In real life, not that funny. But in "Basterds" I chuckled. I laughed at being uncomfortable at Christoph Waltz's terrifyingly hilarious Nazi, the "Jew Hunter." Especially the opening scene where he confronts a French farmer who had been hiding Jews under his floorboards. The Jew Hunter was an awful, terrible person - but that barely showed through the cracks of a gentle demeanor, unless he let it flourish, then he was truly scary. No doubt he will win Best Supporting Actor - and he should! He kind of held the whole movie together.

I'm going to try to make it a point this year to see the rest of Tarantino's movies. He has a unique style, kind of a throwback to the 70s, with a modern sensibility. I take it as he's a pretty fearless filmmaker. A couple examples: 1) He does things like direct a period history drama and it looks like everything is period accurate, but then uses a David Bowie song as background music before the climax. Or 2) He has the balls to rewrite WWII and almost create an American fairy tale story where everything turns out perfect. Well, except for the fact that SPOILER ALERT: barely any characters survive.

So I guess I do like his films, and should Netflix them because I really liked "Basterds." A lot. I rented it on iTunes (which was an adventure in itself, I had never done that before, but it's pretty nifty) and watched it in one sitting, totally enthralled. I don't think I even paused it to go to the potty!

Patrick Approval Rating: 10/10

"Inglourious Basterds" @ imdb

Review: A Serious Man (DVD)

If you haven't seen a Coen Brothers movie, i.e. "Fargo," "Big Lebowski," or "No Country For Old Men," you're missing on out two absurd ridiculous filmmakers who tend to puzzle audiences into loving their movies. At least that's how I feel about the brotherly directing team. "A Serious Man" is their latest whopdinger of a movie, nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars (happening THIS WEEK! Woof.) so I had to see this one before the big day.

I felt about this movie as I felt about "No Country for Old Men." As it starts I'm all - WHA? Idunngittit. And then I fall asleep. Seriously. I was bored and didn't get it and was also tired, so I fell asleep. When I woke up, I thought about giving it a second chance, and resentfully I do- but only because it's nominated for Best Picture. And then once the first 45 minutes/hour pass and the weird settles into my mind and I just succumb to the movie, I end up liking it (in the case of "Serious Man") or loving it (in the case of "No Country.")

I feel like I could've liked or understood the movie so much more if I was Jewish, or even a Christian who was familiar with the Bible, but I'm neither of those so a lot of the biblical parallels and Jewish in jokes that were apparently in the movie went right over my head. "A Serious Man" was like an ode to Judaism and the race and habits and even stereotypes. I found some parts hysterical, other parts awful and morbid - I guess the Coen Brothers really understand and embrace the meaning of dark comedy. This poor tortured soul, Larry, played by Michael Stuhlberg, is suffering one plague of misfortune after another and he tries to understand why it is happening to him. He is a physics professor, so perhaps there is a mathematical way to understand it all, or perhaps it is God punishing him.

I'm keeping this review short and tidy because of all the Best Picture nominees I've seen (which is 9/10 at this point) it's my least favorite. I'm going to give it an approval rating higher than "The Blind Side" because I think this is a better movie all around with better performances and a lot of thought put into every moment, but when I watch a movie I like to understand it, and it to not go over my head, whereas that's something the Coen brothers always seem to strive for. To puzzle their audience so only the savvy and genius can understand it.


Patrick Approval Rating: 6/10


"A Serious Man" @ imdb

Review: The Blind Side (Theatrical)

This movie is nominated for Best Picture?... Really?...Really.

When I first saw the trailer for this film attached to some movie I saw last summer, or fall, or whenever - regardless, I scoffed. I thought "What a sentimental piece of dreck!" And I continuously scoffed at it until it opened and it turned out to be a huge hit. And even as it played in theaters, I scoffed at it and vowed I would never see this movie because it looked cheesy and stupid. And after it started picking up steam and awards talk happened, I thought...really? This movie? And I scoffed some more. Then as it was shockingly nominated for Best Picture, I reluctantly thought "Well now I guess I have to see it. Maybe on DVD." And here we are, roughly three months since it's original release and I ventured to the theater to see the movie. THE MOVIE THEATER?! HOW IS IT STILL PLAYING!? THIS MOVIE?! SERIOUSLY?! HANABHBBJAHjnqskjnauyBIN.

Turns out, it was everything I dreamed it would be. Super sentimental, cheesy, eye rolling worthy - and yet I still enjoyed it. I enjoyed it in a way I thought maybe sometime, five years down the road I could rent a movie like this and curl up on my sofa and watch it at home and I may enjoy it. I don't understand why the audience we saw this with LOVED IT! I'm pretty sure the woman behind me was crying at the end, and the black couple in front of me were riotous throughout. The movie was entirely predictable with a story that seemed to go nowhere until a forced conflict appeared in the last 15 minutes of the movie that gets resolved as quickly as it comes on.

Sandra Bullock was nothing special. I hate saying that because I like her a lot, but to think she's the front runner to win Best Actress for a film released in the year of 2009 above all other actresses in all other movies for THIS MOVIE?!  WHY! Don't get me wrong, she was hugely entertaining in "The Proposal" and I loved her in it, so what if in this movie she's kind of serious for maybe a combined four minutes total when she tears up a little bit on screen. Hand the lady an award, please. Meanwhile Meryl Streep is tackling some very big (no pun intended) shoes with Julia Child and Gabby Sidibe is dealing with issues no person should ever deal with as Clarice Precious Jones, so I'm sorry Sandra Bullock, you don't deserve to win for this movie. Not this year. Comic actors have done the drama route before and it's been marvelous for some (Jim Carrey in "Eternal Sunshine" for instance) but "The Blind Side" does not do you justice.

And I haven't even began to discuss the craptastic message of the film. I assume it was meant to be one of hope and inspiration, a twisted Cinderella tale- boy ripped from the streets and becomes successful NFL player. But to me it played as "poor black boy saved from the dirges of his social position thanks to a nice white Christian lady, because poor black boys can only be saved by white ladies and their families, and especially if those families are Christians, because only Christians do good things." I didn't realize there would be religious undertones or overtones, let alone as prevalent as they were featured. Did a mega-church help fund this movie or something? The cross Sandra Bullock wore around her neck seemed to gleam every time her character did a good deed. And I'm not dissing religious people, or Christians, because to each their own, and it's cool and all, but when a movie appears to be about a woman who only does good in her life because she's Christian and that's what they do, rather than doing good because that need comes from deep within her, well I kinda get irked. It's not to say the woman Bullock is portraying wasn't a good person deep down and that's where the need came from to help poor Michael, but the Christian philosophy was continually shoved in the audience's faces and I didn't think it was a good enough justification of character.

I compare this movie to "Precious," a movie I adored, which is roughly about the same thing (poor black teenager overcomes their home roots to triumph) but whereas Precious found her inner strength from a place deep inside her, Michael finds his inner strength...well...he never actually seems to find it. He finds a way to smile a little bit more only because these white people have been so kind to him. That's not a well deserved payoff of a character's triumph, it's a movie called "The Blind Side." Woof.


Patrick Approval Rating: 5/10


The Blind Side @ imdb

Review: The Lovely Bones

Let's start this review by tackling the age old book vs. movie argument. It's always said "the book is better than the movie." Well of course it is! Reading a book is like producing or directing a movie in your own head. As a matter of fact, I usually approach reading books in a very cinematical way, imagining it as a movie. When I read "The DaVinci Code" I read it as a movie. I visualize the book as it were a film. So when I see the movie, of course it will disappoint because my movie was my own creation and thus much better than anything Ron Howard could've done. Please. Even the Harry Potter books - books I adore, and even though I enjoy the movies, the movies pale in comparison to how I feel about the book. And it goes the other way too, once you've seen a movie based on book, it will forever change your vision of that book should you ever re-read it or read a sequel or something. It's just the way these things go.

Now I've heard and read people who have read "The Lovely Bones" thought the movie was awful and horrendous and blame director Peter Jackson for destroying this beautiful novel. As someone who has not read the book, I thought the movie was pretty good! So what if it lacked any real character development and was just a study on grief and the afterlife, but isn't that a good enough topic for a movie? I thought afterlife explored by the main character, Susie Salmon, played by Saoirse Ronan, was pretty cool to look at despite being overtly CG. And the whodunnit mystery of who killed Susie Salmon is thrilling. Oh please, her death is not even a spoiler alert. You find out within the first two minutes she's dead and within the first five who killed her. Nay - you find out the answer to both of those questions in the trailer for the movie.

The movie was creepy and terrifying and intensely cringeworthy at points. It covers some horrific events in the life and death of this little girl, and Best Supporting Actor nominated Stanley Tucci is Kreepy with a capital K. I think that was probably his character's name. Kreepy McKreeperson. I even didn't hate Mark Wahlberg as Susie's grieving father. I mean remember when he was Marky Mark? And now he's acting in Oscar nominated movies? He's come a long way.

Patrick Approval Rating: 7/10

The Lovely Bones @ imdb

Review: Crazy Heart (Theatrical)

"Crazy Heart" vs. "The Wrestler." That's all I kept thinking going into this movie. I knew it starred someone who all the talk was about for Best Actor and the story line was about a person who had been famous and successful and who had since fallen from grace and kept on keeping on the road to self-destruction. I knew the main character fell for a girl who was messed up herself and had a kid, and though she wanted to be with him, she knew he was bad for her. On paper it just sounded a lot like "The Wrestler" from last year starring Mickey Rourke, but in reality it was different. Obviously. It's a different movie.

Jeff Bridges plays Bad Blake, an old country singer who's broke, down on his luck, and can't seem to make his way back up from playing in tiny saloons and bowling alleys. He meets Jean, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal (too many letters of the same type), a reporter writing an article on him who he basically charms and begins a doomed from the beginning relationship with. So the two fight and get on and off and he keeps drinking and she keeps worrying and I keep wondering where this could possibly go. I knew if it was anything like "The Wrestler" I was going to walk out being all mopey and sad. But just when you think it's going down that road, it doesn't. Things kinda turn around for Bad Blake- maybe not in the best possible way - but the movie ends on a fairly good note whereas with "The Wrestler" I was all "Behhhhhhhhh" and sad.

I did like how the movie was almost a country musical. The songs by T-Bone Streep, nope...I mean T-Bone Burnett sort of commented on the place Bad Blake was in his life, but still could've been taken out of context to work as the bluesy folksy classic country hits they could've been. I don't particulary like this type of music but I found myself tappin' my toes quite a bit and Jeff Bridges is quite a musician! So is Colin Farrell, which was a big surprise to me. Who knew. Remember when he was always on coke?

So Jeff Bridges is front runner for the Oscar? Eh? Alright. I can see it. He made it look easy, almost like he wasn't even acting at all. Which might be the key to him playing this part because it doesn't seem like he's much different than Bad Blake in real life. Well, maybe he is, but he made me think he was Bad Blake regardless. He's very good. With seeing this film, I've now seen all Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress nominees. While I'm still partial for Best Actor to Colin Firth in "A Single Man" who crushed me with a single hearbreaking scene, Bridges does carry the whole movie, and he's good, so I'll be OK if and when he wins. Maggie Gyllenhaal is good, but she won't win Best Supporting Actress this year (Hello M'oM'o.) Plus Gyllenhaal always bothers me always bothers me a little bit. Maybe it's because of all of her Ls and As in her name, but I think it more likely has something to do with her sloopy shoulders she always seems to show off when she wears a lot of strapless tops.


Patrick Approval Rating: 8/10

Crazy Heart @ imdb

Review: The Hurt Locker (DVD)

After I saw "An Education" I figured why not continue my streak of Oscar movie seeing, especially on this nice long weekend, so I Redbox'd it up at Stop & Stop and rented what I guess is being called the frontrunner for the Best Picture win, "The Hurt Locker."

Firstly, I had to lookup what a hurt locker is, and apparently it's soldier speak for getting messed up real bad. As in when you do get messed up, you're stuck in a locker of hurt. So calling the movie "The Hurt Locker" is kinda like also saying if you're in the army in any way, you're also in somewhat of a permanent hurt locker because you're just asking for pain, especially the guys who this movie is about. It's about a US Army bomb squad in Iraq in 2004 who risk their lives to diffuse bombs that have been placed by insurgents by literally walking up to a bomb and diffusing it with their bare hands. Let's just say the movie is way intense. Here I was last night after a long day of work, seeing my second movie of the day, and I was tired- but I was literally was on the edge of my couch during several scenes, flinching at the possibility of what was coming. It had me right from the first frame all the way until the last in its poweful grip. It's shot almost like a documentary so you forget you're watching a movie - it feels so vividly real and scary. "The Hurt Locker" is a classic suspense thriller, where you know the dangers these characters face and you watch them do it, and it can either end one of two ways - the live, or they die. I loved how director Kathyrn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal could have just let the story run the film, but they didn't. We were given glimpses into who these guys were and why they were doing what they were doing and how they felt about their jobs. Some were conflicted, some thought they were sure of it, but not be, and some did it because it made them feel alive to be so close to death. Not only did we get these clues through dialogue but simple shots with just a closeup or a quick look.

Sidenote: I always enjoy seeing actors I didn't know were in movies pop up in random bits. Like I remember hearing Evangeline Lilly (Kate on "Lost") was in this, but by the time she actually popped up in the movie I was so into it I forgot about her and I was like "OH YEAH!" Other notable cameos included Guy Pierce, Ralph Fiennes, and the Ice Truck Killer from "Dexter." He was one of the most exciting to me because I can't recall seeing him in anything else except for when he scared the pants off me as the serial killer from "Dexter's" first season.

Well, did I enjoy this movie? Yes! Yes I did. Do I think it should win Best Picture? No...no I don't.

Maybe I'm suffering a little "Slumdog" syndrome, where the hype and focus for the big win is for one of the movies I liked, but I didn't like the best. And maybe this just shows that the Academy Award winners don't necessarily mean that movie is the best. I've certainly seen movies that weren't nominated for anything and thought they were better than any movies that won or were nominated. But I think what these awards allow for, and why I get so obsessed with seeing the movies, is that a wider audience becomes aware of and gets to see films that are excellent and should be seen. I may have never seen "The Hurt Locker" if it wasn't nominated for anything, but I'm very glad I did. It's a powerful, affecting movie - a commentary on the war against terror and the soldiers who risk their lives to fight for what and why? But do I think it should win Best Picture? At this point, when I've seen seven of the ten nominees, I'm going to say no. I still think "Up" was the best movie of the year, "Avatar" completely blew me away and made me forget where I was in a theater for a good three hours, and even "Up in the Air" connected with me more than "The Hurt Locker." But it's still a very good movie, and one I'd like to revisit when the Oscar hype is not all up in its grill.


Patrick Approval Rating: 9/10

The Hurt Locker @ imdb

Review: An Education (Theatrical)

I woke up this afternoon from a much needed nap to some obscure Olympics happening on the telly and lounged around for a bit before I ended up feeling stir crazy and needed to get out of my apartment. I tentatively and spontaneously ventured to what may be my new (old) favorite movie theater, Images, in Williamstown, where I caught the matinee (and thus cheaper!) showing of the Best Picture nominated "An Education." What a pleasant way to spend a restless afternoon!

The movie was a joy: charming, funny, romantic. Throughout the movie in my head I kept saying "Swinging 60s baby, yeah!" a la Austin Powers, which I know makes me super cool, and I'm just glad I didn't say it out loud. And since I'm a big fan of this era in history, I appreciated this coming of age story of a 16 year old schoolgirl (Jenny, played by Oscar nominated Carey Mulligan) who has bigger aspirations to be more than the simple English schoolgirl as the world and womanhood changes around her. She meets David, an older man who leads a life of jazz and nightclubs and gambling, and is taught the ways of life (both the good and the bad sides) by him, thus the film being titled "An Education." Makes sense right? Well there is also a lot more to the plot, and it goes from a cute romantic comedy to a heartbreaking drama in a matter of moments, but I'm not going to ruin the movie if you haven't seen it. It's one of those where when you finally see what's coming you get knots in your stomach. But unlike say, "A Single Man" where that knot in your stomach never gets resolved, this one does - but maybe not in the way you'd expect (or want.)

I can't quite place what genre the film falls in. It feels almost like a contemporary costume drama, mixed with a romantic comedy, with a twist of drama. Regardless, the movie wasn't perfect for me - it seemed to lack a reason for being made. Don't get me wrong, I liked it and enjoyed it and thought the performances were good - but I didn't come out of it being wowed. I thought, well that's a good story, but what was it's purpose? You get what I'm throwing at you? No? Well that's OK. I still recommend it, because I think it's a good film, maybe I just didn't "get" this one.

Carey Mulligan is a natural actress, and carries the entire film. It's her story and she drew me right in with her subtle acting. Peter Sarsgaard does a fine job as her love interest, David, and I continue to think he's one of today's most under-appreciated actors. I also think he has too many A's in his last name, and find it amusing he's married/dating/with Maggie Gyllenhaal and she also has one too many A's. Most amusing for me however was Alfred Molina as Jenny's uptight dad. This part could've been a cliche villain of the story, but not only did I find his off-color remarks hilarious, but he also had quite a bit of heart in the character, which was refreshing for a role like this.

I can knock off another Best Picture nominee from my list now. Though I really liked "An Education," I think this is one of those movies that if there wasn't 10 nominees, this one would not be nominated. But y'all should still see it anyhow. It's cute.

Patrick Approval Rating: 8/10

An Education @ imdb

Review: A Single Man (Theatrical)

Wow. So this movie happened and I kind of went home from the theater feeling numb. Now after I saw "Precious" my body ached with pain, but after "A Single Man" I just wanted to curl up in my bed and hug my teddy bear. If you don't know, the movie is about George, a middle aged college professor played by Colin Firth whose lover of sixteen years, Jim, was killed in a car accident eight months before the action takes place. And on this day the movie takes place in George's life he has decided to kill himself because he is a lonely, miserable, single man who feels like he is drowning underwater and cannot breathe through his loneliness. At school that day he meets a young student who has an interest in him and comes on to George, who at first pushes him away, but through persistence, the boy, played by Nicholas Hoult, gets to George and...well...I don't want to spoil the rest of the movie, because I think you should all see this one.

So the story is good, but the movie as a whole is great. Everything from the cinematography to the score to the acting is quite close to perfection. It's hard to believe the movie was directed by a first time director, nevermind a director who is normally a fashion designer. Tom Ford directs the movie like a pro, and his designer eye lends itself beautifully to film. Whereas I feel sometimes film is all over the place and I don't quite get it, I got everything single thing in this movie. When I saw Stephen Sondheim lecture at Williams a couple weeks ago one of the things that really stuck in my head was when he said "Art is a conscious effort" and I think Tom Ford really took that to every frame, every shot, every composed moment in this film - it was all a piece of art that was consciously thought about, and I ate that up like the rice and beans I had for dinner tonight. The bleak colors and tinting to George's world when he was alone and lonely, and how the film and colors would literally subtly brighten up every time he made a connection with another person made me squeal with joy. It just worked! And the opening credits! Oh my, how amazing they were. A naked Colin Firth sinking deeper and deeper into this murky water while this pounding, driving score played. Beautifully sad.

The music overall was amazing - I'm not sure who wrote it, and I'm too lazy right now to look it up, but I could feel the darkness of the film in the music. I don't often notice the music of a movie, which is usually a good thing, it's not supposed to stand out - but maybe when it does stand out and makes an emotional impact, the music is super awesome. And it was in "A Single Man." OH! And the acting - well I haven't even touched on that yet! Colin Firth is so far my favorite to win, even though he probably won't. His best moment in a movie full of amazing ones was when he hears Jim has died - I could see his heart break on the screen. His chest heaved up and down and I was sucked into his pain. So much so I didn't even notice it was Mad Man's Jon Hamm on the other end of the phone! But Amy picked up on that. Firth really made George real, taking in each last moment of his last day of life - even when he creepily smelled a stranger's dog and said it smelled like buttered toast. Umm...sure it's creepy, but actually kind of really true. Sometimes my Sydney dog at home smells like toast too. Not that I smell her on purpose, but it's noticeable. She's cute and so it's forgivable. Also the scene where George tries to kill himself and cannot find a comfortable way of doing it KILLED ME. Not literally, but I was stifling laughter because it shouldn't have been funny, but it most definitely was. I think the other people in the theater just didn't have a sense of humor. And why Julianne Moore isn't nominated for an Oscar this year when she was nominated for every other award for this movie is beyond me. Her character Charley, George's hag, was absolutely pathetically in love with George and a big giant bitch because she couldn't do anything about it. The scene where she is spending so much time applying and perfecting the makeup for just one of her eyes so she can look pretty for George when they meet that night killed me. It's so tragic.

Obviously, if you can't tell by now I loved and adored the movie even though it made me tense and forget to breathe on occasion. It's a downer, with no happy ending, so don't go into it expecting to leave feeling "light in your loafers" but it comes highly recommended for me. I can't wait to revisit this one.

Patrick Approval Rating: 10/10

"A Single Man" @ imdb

Review: Public Enemies (DVD)

I'm going to take this opportunity to discuss my theory on entertainment and how life syncs with it. I believe every movie, TV show, song, book - anything that you do or watch or read or see for enjoyment is linked to a certain time or memory in your life. You know, you always have that one song that brings you back to that one super awesome moment in your life where you were listening to it driving around in the car at 5AM. Or you have that TV show you watched and for the first time it dawned on you, "This is what TV can be!" But alas, for the purposes of the blog, I'm going to discuss movies but I think the sync-theory applies to all entertainment. It's just that sometimes you sync perfectly with a movie because of where you are watching it, who you are watching it with, what mood you're in, what place you are at in your own personal life and how the movie's themes tie into your own at the time. The experience of how you see a movie affects your enjoyment of it. For example, I may have joined the rest of the majority of Earth to think the movie "Deep Impact" is as awful as it truly is, but it was the first grown-up movie I saw without my parents and for that reason, watching that movie always brings me back to being a scared 12 year old with his best friend Kyle sitting in the crappy movie theater chowing down on popcorn and bawling like a baby when SPOILER ALERT everybody dies in the end. (Except for Leelee Sobieski. Thank goodness she was one of the few who lived. Leelee. For real, that's her name. How sad/awesome.)

That all being said I hated "Public Enemies," the movie I'm supposed to be reviewing here. Maybe in another time, another place, seeing this in the theater when it first came out, seeing it with friends - maybe I would've liked it. Certainly seems like it would be a good fit for me on paper, - Christian Bale (nevermind him as Batman, look for him in "Newsies" - duh,) Johnny Depp (who doesn't love him,) and Marion Cotillard (who over the past two years has become one of my favorite actresses.) I should've liked this movie. I was even waiting for it to come on my Netflix for weeks. Well it arrived January 12th and here we are, Feb. 3rd and I've put it on tonight because I've finally finished watching all of "Lost" before last night's premiere, and this DVD's been a burden holding up the rest of my queue and I needed to get rid of it. So I'm going into the movie not really wanting to watch it. I made myself a dinner during the course of the movie, a dinner I butchered due to my split concentration (a watery mac and cheese with baked beans in which I found pieces of the paper wrapping from the can in after I cooked it because I fought a lengthy battle with my new can opener to get the darn can open.) I had a half and half day at work (half good, half bad) and have my mind on other things. And I'm now writing this blog entry as the movie wraps up. It's been on for two hours, and I've maybe actually only watched 10 or so minutes combined. I tried. It didn't hold my attention. I can't even tell you the general plot.

So maybe I'll revisit "Public Enemies" someday. Maybe when it's on cable, maybe re-add it to my Netflix, or maybe I'll call it even and say "Public Enemies" and I are not meant to be.

Patrick Approval Rating: I didn't pay attention to enough of it to even care.

Public Enemies @imdb

Review: Invitcus (Theatrical)

I was hoping for something extraordinary to see for my first movie of 2010. I started 2009 off with Slumdog Millionaire, which was just a little known movie that nobody saw or cared about. I wanted to see Invictus, but felt sort of ho-hum about the film. I've always appreciated seeing those feel good losers become winners "sports" movies, a la Friday Night Lights or Remember The Titans or hell, even The Big Green. ( I think The Mighty Ducks fits in there too, actually. Anyways, Invictus falls right in the same category, but possibly because it's directed by Clint Eastwood and stars Oscar winners Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon and is getting all sorts of buzz for those three people, the film is supposedly elevated to above those other movies that fall into the inspiration sport movie film.

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed it, but the movie was absolutely nothing special, and not even anything I hadn't seen before. Granted those movies didn't involve Nelson Mandela, or rugby for that matter, a sport which I know NOTHING about except that it's super violent and involved a lot of grunting. Morgan Freeman as Mandela was very good. I mean

1) who doesn't love anything with Morgan Freeman in it? He could narrate a documentary about penguins walking on ice and make it entertaining. Wait a second...

And 2) Who other than Morgan Freeman could play Nelson Mandela? Nobody. He was perfect for the part, and suprisingly funny!

Matt Damon, an actor who I've never fully appreciated probably because I don't really like the Bourne movies and I associate him with them, got to show off some mad rugby skills. Talk of an Oscar nom for him for this? Seriously? He was way better in The Informant!, a movie I hated (and fell asleep during in the theater) but thought he was excellent in it. But whatever.

The movie plays out exactly like you'd expect an inspirational sports movie to play out, except because it's directed by Clint Eastwood, the cinematography has a slightly blue/dark tone to the film. It's definitely a departure for him, though he did do a sports movie with Million Dollar Baby, but that was also way more of a drama and character study than Invictus. At least I thought so.

I'm glad I saw the movie as it will probably be nominated for some Oscars and I like seeing all the Oscar nominated movies, but it would otherwise be a movie I'd rather rent on DVD and watch in my own home and wipe my misty eyes at the end when, OBVIOUS SPOILER ALERT, the team wins.

Patrick Approval Rating: 7/10

Invictus @ imdb