THE HURT LOCKER - Hurts So Good

I saw a good movie, which seems to be rare these days. THE HURT LOCKER is easily the best thing I've seen since UP.

OOOH, THESE SPOILERS HURT

HURT LOCKER tells the story of a bomb disposal squad in Iraq in 2004. After the death of the bomb tech/team lead, squadmates Eldridge and Sanborn get a new team leader/tech. Whereas their former team leader did things by the book and was concerned for everyone's safety, the new team leader, SGT. JAMES, is an adrenaline junkie who prefers to get out there himself and and take a few risks. This doesn't sit too well with Sanborn, who thinks James just might get himself and his squad blown up. And Eldridge struggles with the horrors of battle and the overwhelming sense that he'll die in the field.

Script ably ups the tension at nearly every turn with some smart choices. It's structured against the timeline of the troop rotating out of Iraq (39 days and counting when the film starts). Every situation -- whether dealing with a possible IED, civilians watching on a nearby rooftop, or even interacting with local merchants -- is dealt with up close and fraught with potential peril. Even blowing up a weapons cache in the middle of the desert turns into a nail-biter with a standoff with some suspected Hajjis (who turn out to be British Special Forces) followed by a rescue attempt on the Brits' prisoners.

So you've got a great script and some superb acting, with notable turns by Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty. And Katheryn Bigelow does a fine job of directing.

There are really only two flaws in the film, one of casting and one of the script. There are a number of times when famous/recognizable actors show up in bit parts, which ranges from not bothersome in the least (David Morse) to really distracting (Ralph Fiennes). I'm all for casting good people in all parts, but there's no reason to have Ralph Fiennes show up for literally 5 minutes of screentime (and die too). It's similar to the moment in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN when Ted Danson's suddenly behind a wall. You don't think -- wow, there's a Special Forces captain. You think ("Hey, Ted Danson's in WWII!") And I love Evangeline Lilly probably more than anyone except Dominic Monaghan, but there's nothing for her to do in this film. And if I had her waiting at home, I sure wouldn't be in a hurry to head back to Iraq.

The script flaw is after Sgt. James finishes his rotation and heads back stateside. He has a hard time adjusting to life without the threat of constant death, which is ably shown through scenes in which he's sitting at home bored, cleaning out his rain gutter, and overwhelmed by the choices in the cereal aisle. We get -- simply and visually -- that he doesn't fit in here like he does in the wilds of the Iraq war dismantling bombs. Then the script gives us an unnecessary scene of pure, blatant, on-the-nose dialogue, when Sgt. James has a conversation with his newborn son and tells him he'll go from loving everything when he's a baby to loving just one thing when he's Sgt. James' age. We don't need this scene, particularly because the very next scene shows helicopters touching down in Iraq, Sgt. James swaggering off the copter, and then the same swagger inside his bomb suit as he strides off towards danger, happy as a clam. If anything, the dialogue scene gets in the way of the beautiful, almost non-verbal setup and payoff of that sequence.

But those are small flaws in what is otherwise a pretty damn solid film. Go see it.

500 DAYS OF SUMMER, about 495 days too long

You can't find a cuter actress than Zoey Deschanel. And she can act too. And Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of the most talented actors of his generation. Just check out THE LOOKOUT to see that proven. The two of them in a romantic comedy should be great. But it's not.

SUMMERTIME SPOILER ALERT

There are several problems with the film.

#1 TONE

The tone is all over the place. At times, it's a lighthearted comedy. Sometimes it's postmodern, like when JGL breaks the fourth wall and looks into camera, or when there's a song-and-dance number complete with animated bird. Other times, the film's a mopey affair. In fact, most of the time it's sad. None of these tones particularly gel -- we're laughing one minute, enjoying the antics of JGL's precocious kid sister, and then we're wallowing in self-pity. Some of the film's realistic, some of it's very postmodern, and sometimes there are visual effects for no discernible reason. Seems like the writers and director were going for something hip and edgy, but it just feels fuzzy and undisciplined. In fact, if you got rid of the film's happy ending, you'd have a very miserable movie.

#2 THE STRUCTURE

The film bounces around at various points in the relationship, from the end to the beginning and back. It feels like it was trying for some sort of ANNIE HALL feel, but where that film's structure is used as an asset to explore how a relationship starts great and ends poorly, here, it just feels like movement for movement's sake. We're not exploring the relationship in chronological order, and in most cases, the juxtapositions between early and late-stage scenes aren't used for irony or to drive the story forward. The creators aim for a structure in which JGL tries to win ZD back, but he doesn't really try much and instead acts mopey and depressed, which isn't an impressive strategy.

#3 ZD's CHARACTER

The writers engage in some truly lazy writing. Other than the fact that Zooey is adorable and happens to like the same depressing '80s music as JGL, we don't get why he likes her. Oh wait -- the writers have the narrator speak over scenes where he just tells us she's great and that everyone loves her (scenes where the narration duplicates the voiceover). So instead of seeing that there's something special about her, we're told it. Which is very, very weak.

#4 THEIR RELATIONSHIP

With nothing particularly in common, we don't root for the two of them to get together. So it's no big tragedy when they break up. And it feels as if JGL should just get on with his life. Zooey's not into him, and besides, she told him she wasn't looking for anything serious before they started dating. Seems pretty commonsense that their relationship would end the way it did.

In order for any romance-based film to work, we need to buy into the relationship at its core. We have to know that Harry and Sally belong together so that we're willing to sit through all the bullshit that comes between our desire and that actually happening two hours later. Here, we know ZD and JGL don't belong together, so we don't care that they break up.

#5 THE NARRATION

Narration can be good in a film, if it adds a layer to the film that you wouldn't get otherwise. Whether that's the ironic commentary of something like A CLOCKWORK ORANGE or SUNSET BOULEVARD or the unreliability of THE USUAL SUSPECTS, all three of those films would be lessened if you removed the voiceover. In 500 DAYS, the narration tries for irony and jokiness, but instead usually just duplicates what we're seeing and fills in backstory and character that we should see through character action. It's also used inconsistently, falling away for great stretches of time and then reappearing for no reason.

And the most glaring mis-use is at the end of the film, when the narrator comments about how JGL finally learned that there's no such things as fate and destiny (and then returns to talk to the girl who's interviewing for the same job as him). Which is weird, because the movie isn't about fate and destiny, and neither concept is even mentioned before this. ZD works in the same office as JGL, but she doesn't start working there due to some accident or quirk of kismet.

500 DAYS aspires to a post-modern ANNIE HALL, but instead falls way short of the mark due to its muddled script and direction and the inclusion of quirks for quirkiness' sake rather than some story purpose.

FUNNY PEOPLE, not so funny

I like Judd Apatow. He's a funny guy with a good grasp of comedy and a great handle on characters. He tends to make long, sloppy movies about people hanging out, and often the dialogue and screwing around that comes between setpieces is funnier than the setpieces themselves. And he's gathered together a great ensemble of actors, actresses, and writers that he uses in all his movies and mentors in the things he doesn't direct. So I was really looking forward to FUNNY PEOPLE.

Unfortunately, it's a bit of a mess.

Stand up for some spoilers below...

Here are the problems with the film.

#1 LENGTH

Unless you're making an epic sort of film, your movie should aim for under two hours. If you're telling the story of THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI or SEVEN SAMURAI, you need length to get across all the details. If you're making A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and you're detailing the rehabilitation and humiliation of a thug (and his return to brutality), clocking in at two-and-a-half hours and change is a-okay. But in a comedy, that's unforgivable. Even TOOTSIE, one of the most densely plotted and character rich comedies of all time manages to get its business done in 116 minutes (with credits). A 2:45 comedy isn't all that funny.

#2 LESLIE MANN

I like Leslie Mann a lot. She's cute, she's funny, and she's a good actress. And she's Judd Apatow's wife. So I get he wants to make her the female lead and give her a lot of screentime. But the movie's about Adam Sandler's George Simmons character and how a near-death experience affects him. Most of the movie's last 45 minutes becomes the Leslie Mann character's story. How she's unhappy in her marriage. How she falls for George again. And ultimately how she's disappointed by him and chooses her husband and her marriage. This is weird for a couple of reasons. One, she's barely in the movie before this. Two, it's George's story, and George becomes completely passive and reactive for this entire long chunk of screentime. And three, the film doesn't need it. We could easily have gotten a scene or two where the two reconnect and she almost goes away with him and ends her marriage instead of the sprawling, Mann-focused mini-movie.

#3 GEORGE AND LESLIE MANN

This relationship feels underwritten and set up wrong. We get a few scenes of George looking at old pictures, watching her old reel, and talking to her on the phone. But we don't see the two of them together, and we don't know why they belong together. He mentions she loved him before he became famous, which is a good idea (as opposed to the scores of women George now sleeps with solely because he is famous), but it isn't developed. And we learn that they broke up because George cheated on her. This is hammered home with Leslie Mann's husband (Eric Bana) and her upset that he's now cheating on her too. So you'd think that when George and Laura hook up again, things would go well and then he'd cheat on her again. It's easy enough to do -- we've seen George can't resist sleeping with fans (even two in the same night), and we know women fall all over themselves to get with him due to his fame. This is the expectation Apatow creates, and to see it not paid off is disappointing. Instead, we get a small character moment of George not appreciating Laura's daughter singing CATS. While it's a good beat, it's minor, and not the crushing disappointment that could've come. Imagine Laura sleeping with George again, deciding to leave her husband because he cheats on her, and then catching George with another woman. That would be a great beat.

#4 IRA

Seth Rogen's Ira doesn't have a lot to do in the film. He has no character arc to speak of, and that makes him feel like a weak sidekick. It would have been fairly easy to develop something the film hints at -- that what's holding Ira back (in standup and in life) is his insecurity. We could see that onstage and in how he interacts with the cute comedienne has has a crush on. And it builds to a head when he has to decide whether to speak up about George fucking up Laura's whole marriage or not. He does speak up, loses his job, but gets the confidence he needs to perfect his act and finally ask out Daisy (this last bit would've been better than the odd setup now where he likes Daisy but gets turned off after she sleeps with his roommate).

On the plus side, the film has plenty of cock jokes to go around.

I'm Gay for BRUNO.

I don't know why so many people are knocking BRUNO. If you like BORAT (or THE ALI G show), it's pretty much the same thing. Although Bruno is certainly gayer, in every way imaginable.

SPOILERS STRUTTING DOWN THE CATWALK BELOW

Bruno manages the odd feat of making incredibly offensive gay jokes (including various odd objects in various assholes) and being incredibly pro-gay at the same time. Much as BORAT exposed peoples' ignorance towards various social issues, BRUNO does the same thing but focusing mainly on homophobia. By being so shocking and in-your-face about gayness, it brings to the forefront most folks' deep-seated discomfort with homosexuality.

Bruno has a number of highly amusing gags and some great jokes. What's weakest about it, like BORAT, is its structure. Fortunately comedy is one of the few genres where structure doesn't matter as much as in other films. If something's funny, audiences are willing to excuse a weak plot. (Musicals and Hong Kong action films are the other two genres where plot can take a backseat). Think about your favorite comedies. Odds are, while there are some amazingly crafted gems in there (GROUNDHOG DAY, TOOTSIE, and IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT being favorites of mine), there are probably some movies that are funny as hell but also sloppy (VACATION and CADDYSHACK for me).

Bruno's excuse for a plot has him going to America to become famous. And doing various things along the way to achieve that goal -- trying to get an American TV series on the air, trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, adopting a black baby because it's fashionable; and then realizing he'll need to become straight to make it big in Hollywood, visiting a gay conversion ministry, taking self-defense classes, and going hunting, all before staging a big cage-fighting straight-fest in his new guise as "Straight Dave," whose asshole's "just for shitting" (and then breaking down, stripping down, and hilariously making out with his assistant to the utter disgust and discomfort of an arena full of Arkansans).

Because the storyline's more or less the same thing as in BORAT, down to coming to America, trying to make it on American TV, fighting with his assistant/producer, and then reconciling, it feels a little familiar. And it's not like BORAT was the most tightly plotted film to begin with. And because 85% of BRUNO's jokes are all specifically related to homosexuality, the net isn't cast as wide as in BORAT. Where BORAT could make fun of homophobia, anti-Semitism, and a host of other issues, BRUNO mainly settles on throwing outrageous homosexuality at people -- whether it's Ron Paul, an anti-gay minister, or a black TV audience. This has the effect of making the occasional asides -- showing up Brittany Gastineau by getting her to say that Jamie-Lynn Spears should abort her ugly, retarded-looking baby; having a fashion model talk about how hard it is to put one foot in front of the other (plus turning, which is the hardest); or quizzing Israeli and Palestinian activists about why hummus is bad -- seem funnier than some of the particularly goofy, obnoxious gay antics.

However, the showing I went to was jam-packed at 10:00am on a Friday, and the movie had me laughing constantly throughout. And it also made me think about how most people react poorly to homosexuality, whether it's as blatant as Bruno's antics or the more sedate, "normal" behavior of the gay people I know. So I guess it works.

Public Enemies, Public Failure

I really wanted to like PUBLIC ENEMIES. I like Michael Mann, when he's not too self-indulgent, and am a huge fan of both Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. I also love authentic period films, especially when they're about a subject matter I don't know too much about (and what I know about gangsters in the Prohibition Era is limited to old movies).

A TOMMY GUN'S MAGAZINE WORTH OF SPOILERS AHEAD

Unfortunately, PUBLIC ENEMIES is pretty weak. It's basically a shorter, watered-down version of HEAT (not that a shorter HEAT would be a bad thing -- if that movie was just over 2 hours instead of 3, like you cut the subplots with Mykelti Williamson and Ted Levine, it'd be a modern classic instead of a decent movie that's way too long). There are two major problems with the film and a number of minor ones.

Major Problem #1 -- the film touches on a number of thematic issues that could drive the story, but doesn't focus on any. So the film isn't about any one thing, lending it a very scattershot, meandering feel. PE could've been a great film about a guy who loves robbing banks and how a confluence of social factors, legal changes, and progress makes that impossible; he decides he'd rather die doing what he loves than give it up. That worked great for two of the best Westerns ever made -- BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID and THE WILD BUNCH. Or, PE could've been an interesting study of Bale's Melvin Purvis character and how he does horrible things to catch a horrible person, becoming a monster in the process (the film hints that it wanted to be about this, when we see his regret at how his agent treated Billie Freshette and his self-disgust after gunning down several men, plus the postscript about how he killed himself later in life). Or, it could've been a film like BONNIE AND CLYDE, where an outlaw couple loved what they were doing too much to stop, and how it got one of them jailed and the other killed (come to think of it, that's BADLANDS as well). Or a film about loyalty and how Dillinger constantly risks death to save his friends and loved ones. Or a film about a guy who needs to retire but has to pull one last big score in order to do it (pretty much any heist film).

Any single thematic issue would serve to clarify the film by allowing the writers and Mann to craft the plot around that thread. Instead of bouncing around to Dillinger, Billie, Purvis, the mob, and wherever else we go.

Major Problem #2 -- There's nothing to the Dillinger-Freshette romance. He thinks she's attractive and she's interested in him. That's about it. We get a line about how she's never been anywhere, so we understand why she's initially attracted to him. But that's about the extent of their relationship. It's a major force in the story, and we're supposed to believe that Dillinger would risk capture to get her out of jail because he loves her so much. But there's nothing there that shows us why or that the two of them belong together. And once she knows he's going to end up dead or in jail and she sees his brutality (in beating a jerky customer when she's working a coatcheck and when he guns down people as part of his job), there's really no good reason for her to stick around.

On to the minor problems.

The film intros Dillinger breaking his friends out of jail, where they gun down innocent guards. There's nothing wrong with showing Dillinger's loyalty, but it's hard to like a guy if he's causing unnecessary deaths the moment you meet him. I understand Mann and company are trying to be faithful to the facts, but they made a narrative film, not a documentary. This could've been solved by making the guards jerks -- we see them abusing Dillinger's gang, beating them, torturing them, taunting them that they heard Dillinger got captured and will be joining them soon. And they're going to kill him. This would serve to do a few things -- clarify the gang's relationship to Dillinger (it's pretty murky), make the audience hate the guards so that when they die, we're rooting for Dillinger and his guys, and make us fear for Dillinger when we see him go into the jail as a "prisoner," better setting up the reversal that there's a jailbreak in progress. There's a lot of other brutality in the film, such as beating the guy at the coatcheck stand, and you've got to work extra-hard to make someone like a brutal thug (see the writing in LAST KING OF SCOTLAND or THE SOPRANOS for good examples on how to do it right).

There are way too many characters. There are literally dozens of FBI agents, most of whom are indistinguishable from one another and many of whom wind up dead. When the movie ended, and I saw Rory Cochrane's name in the credits, I didn't even recall seeing him. Fewer (composite) characters for both Dillinger's gang and Purvis' men would help the audience keep track of who they are and make them more distinct.

Dillinger seems like an idiot some of the time. Main example -- the FBI is on the hunt for him. He narrowly escaped death a couple of times now. They're based in Chicago and want him dead. So what does he do? Flee the country? Leave Chicago? He hangs out there, going to see a movie with a whore and her madam. While that's what happened in real life, it doesn't make his death seem like a needless tragedy so much as inevitable, given his poor decision-making skills.

Purvis also seems stupid often. While sometimes bad guys escape due to his men's incompetence, he also causes the death of several of his men by not listening to expert advice on how to apprehend fugitives -- including waiting for backup!

There's no one to really root for. The protagonist and the antagonist both have their flaws. Dillinger doesn't have a particular goal, such as fleeing the country or pulling one more heist to get enough money to retire, so we're just watching him rob bank after bank, often resulting in people dying or at least getting badly beaten, and for no particular reason other than greed. The FBI doesn't want to apprehend Dillinger for the good of society, but instead J. Edgar Hoover wants it to build his power-base at the FBI and Purvis wants to do it out of embarrassment/fear of being shown up.

Hopefully HARRY POTTER will be better, as that's the next movie this summer I'm looking forward to.

Boy Do I Suck

I haven't posted in ages. So I'll rectify that in a moment...