Juno, Redacted, The Savages, Beowulf, & More

Theatrical releases seen this year: 282 and counting, with only a handful of major ones left to catch up with (among them Sweeney Todd, Charlie Wilson's War, and A Band's Visit), all this week, before we publish our year-end lists. Below are short takes on a few, some older than others, that I've recently caught up with but have been reviewed by others on the site.
Juno (Jason Reitman). Almost as tough to swallow as Hard Candy, that faux-feminist bile that set a precedent for the precociousness Ellen Page belligerently spews here, though less sketchy than Little Miss Sunshine, last year's pageant of Indiewood quirkitude. I get why Comic Book Guys dig Page—she can outwit them, but she would also let them bone her (at least she tells them she would)—but I would rather be trapped in a room with a hungry, face-munching rat than watch the egomaniacal Juno weave one of her ungodly snark quilts. Also, by the time that song about the dog wanting to be the cat and the cat wanting to be the mouse came on the soundtrack, my survival instinct kicked in and I was ready to chew my arm off, but I settled for making Arrested Development cracks until the last act, which was lovely, yes, because of the moral clarity and consistency Juno shows, but also because the film had finally run out of seasons to animate on the screen.
Gone Baby Gone (Ben Affleck). Ben Affeck's directorial debut plays like Mystic River for Lifetime, from its bland bid for moral engagement from its audience to a look at working-class life in Boston that never transcends kitsch. Given the film's pedigree, it seemed wrong that I was able to call the preposterous ending a mile away, but there it was—every bit as absurd as the last film Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman or Bruce Beresford made together. The casting of Trudi Goodman as a coke-snorting pedophile felt particularly inhumane, though not as mind-boggling as the beeline Michelle Monaghan made for the exit at the end of the film (those who've read the book tell me her character has been considerably dumbed down), leaving Casey Affleck sitting on a couch wondering if kindergarten-cop duty is just punishment for the ethical exactitude he showed earlier.
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (Sydney Lumet). Run Lola Run for the Lincoln Plaza sect, but with less pop and significance. Mostly an overactor's showcase, this nihilistic cheapie allows the one and only Philip Seymour Hoffman to make frequent and dubious use of the word faggot. The script is obviously responsible for the architectural design of the thing, but Lumet, who revealed during the film's NYFF press conference that he didn't know whether Kelly Masterson is a man or a woman, has gotten all the credit.
Starting Out in the Evening (Andrew Wagner). Treks familiar ground—call it NYC lit porn, with half the incisiveness of Husbands and Wives, but also none of its misanthropy—though you wouldn't know it from Frank Langella's conviction. Like Benicio del Toro in How Our Pupils Dilated When the Things in Our Garage Caught Fire, he trusts, inhabits, and redefines a stock type—here a has-been author sheltered from the world and struggling to push out a new creation—making an ordinary film seem less so.
Redacted (Brian De Palma). Ugly. Naïve. Shrill. Hateful. What's more tragic: That this marks the lowpoint of De Palma's career or that Bill O'Reilly, the worst person in the world, more or less nailed it without even seeing it?
Beowulf (Robert Zemeckis). More so than George Lucas, Robert Zemeckis hides behind technology to cheat us of human experience and feeling. Like 300, Beowulf is at once luridly sexed up and homo-wary, a Shrek film for Playboy subscribers, but put me in the chorus that's praising the epic dragon showdown in the second half. Also, until I saw There Will Be Blood last week, the year's best score belonged to Alan Silvestri, if only for the sinister crescendo that signals all of Angelina Jolie's comings and goings.
The Savages (Tamara Jenkins). When Laura Linney finally wins an Oscar, will it be for having made a career out of playing the same character over and over again with the staunch, actorly conviction that she wasn't? Because Tamara Jenkins contrives lame, shopworn scenarios to force two estranged siblings to give a little heart and soul, I imagine the story's snooty lit-circle aura is accountable for the film's histrionic plaudits. We like what we know, and the Sideways Fan Club is naturally fawning over this one, but you'd think more people would be shooing Jenkins's Solondzian self-referentiality. "You didn't think it was some middle-class whining?" Umm, yeah. "You didn't think it's self-important and bourgeois?" Completely. Been there, never want to again. One caveat: Philip Seymour Hoffman may be a more arrogant performer than Linney, but you wouldn't know it from the way he deflects, almost humanely, the Wendy character's cruel and presumptuous behavior.
Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy). Scarcely nuanced moral quandaries, a typically hammy performance from Tom Wilkinson, preposterously symbolic use of fillies, and a middlebrow aesthetic no doubt intended as a gesture of good will toward producers Steven Soderbergh, Anthony Minghella, and Syndney Pollock, the film has the energy of a particularly weak AM transmission and is capped with a shot more vainglorious than the whole of 300.
3:10 to Yuma (James Mangold). After all the annoying postmodern dithering of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, it was a relief to see a western uninterested in condescending to the genre. I've stepped in deeper puddles of water, but the filmmaking is agreeably old-fashioned and the performances—except for Ben Foster, who appears to have already reached his expiration date—are equally sturdy, with Russell Crowe redeeming himself, retroactively in my case, after the abomination that is Ridley Scott's witless American Gangster.








Comments
That said, I do wish there were more opportunities for the writers at Slant to write about movies they have indeed enjoyed. I treasured the 100 Essential Films feature for that very reason, and I credit it with having expanded my interests in cinema. There are those who I can understand might regard the abundance of negative reviews as a turn-off (their loss, their loss), so perhaps if room could be made to more regularly sing the praises of beloved movies (such as in your short cuts blog posting maybe?) then more people might stand to benefit.
(If, by the way, a second 100 Essential Films column were to be started, I'd be simply elated!)
Also, these are not reviews, but a collection of "short cuts" tossed off in a matter of minutes. I feel the need to point this out because I've already read a few misinformed responses to this post elsewhere on the Web suggesting that people think this column is my only outlet. There was lots of positive energy in this post: Standing Out in the Evening and 3:10 to Yuma are both worth seeing, and there would have been more had I jotted down my thoughts on Youth Without Youth and Into the Wild, but I also spared everyone what I thought about Grace Is Gone, a Teddy Ruxpin version of In the Valley of the Elah that condescends to red state America and pro-war hangers-on.
As for Into the Wild, Matt, Sean Penn's directorial touches are a little overreaching, but the film's speculative tendencies are fraught with emotion—a heartbreaking need to understand the unfathomable. I think it's a struggle most of us can relate too, even if we all haven't taken a break from our lives and families and hiked through the wilderness of America for years. (I was reminded of all the friends I made in college who never said goodbye before returning to their homes, leaving me to wonder what our friendships meant and what ever happened to them.) Also, Hal Holbrook's performance is something out of this world. I love how Penn shot the kitchen scene where Ron reveals to Christopher how he lost his wife and child from afar. As Christopher begins to mean more and more to the old man, the camera move closer, until the intimacy of Ron's teary-eyed farewell becomes blinding. That scene inside the jeep is the classiest "Oscar scene" I've ever seen.
Counter-points well taken, but I must admit I was struck by a particular anger in this post that has been present in some of your reviews this year. In fact, (and I'm sure you have numbers to either prove me wrong or right), but it seems like you've been writing fewer reviews in general. Also, I believe you have yet to give a film 4 stars (I thought I'm Not There was a lock, but I guess not). I think this is part of the reason people are saying you "don't like movies anymore." I know that to be untrue, but when you use your powerful writing to destroy a film, several films that is, in one short blog post, it can seem that way. Keep up the good work and I hope you continue the site, freelance contributions aside.
Also, please tell us what you thought of "There Will Be Blood."
(I was reminded of all the friends I made in college who never said goodbye before returning to their homes, leaving me to wonder what our friendships meant and what ever happened to them.)
I like that. I think that’s a beautiful thought. When you provide those sorts of insights, to me, it’s like you have found a way to squeeze a handful of sand without letting it trickle through the spaces between your fingers. (I don’t know-- that’s just the first thing that came to mind.) The point being, your column makes it that much easier to approach the vast world of great films without feeling like I will run out of air before reaching the tip of the iceberg. Professional film critique is saturated with reviewers who dole out 4-star ratings like they mean nothing. They are whores, basically. Dirty whores. The four star review should be a meaningful thing, shouldn’t it? So much for a standardized system. Um…I’m losing my train of thought.
A few closing questions, to which responses are optional (as if they would otherwise be mandatory):
- Will you be the one to post a review for “There Will Be Blood?”
- What is your opinion of PTA’s “Magnolia.”?
- How shitty is it that Deadwood was taken off the air? Do you think the so-called Deadwood movies will ever see the light of day?
- Do you like the show Freaks and Geeks? (RIP)
Thanks! Ciao.
Kevin: Thanks for the nice words, you humble me. To answer your questions real quick, since I'm out the door soon: yes, I'll be writing on There Will Be Blood; Magnolia is awesome, though it's been quite some time since I've seen it; yes, it sucks that Deadwood is off the air, and one of the reasons why There Will Be Blood didn't resonate with me beyond an elaborate exercise in style is because it doesn't have that powerful, compassionate human interest that Deadwood or any of PTA's other films have (I doubt we'll ever see more Deadwood ever again); and, no, I never saw Freaks and Geeks.
I've got to say I couldn't disagree more about your assessment of Redacted. It certainly is ugly, naïve, shrill, and hateful, but I saw these as good things. De Palma is the one filmmaker who's not scared to stoop to their level, so to speak. When you have the right lying shamelessly, bewitching the public with sophistry, spewing rhetoric about supporting the troops and critics of the war "just helping the terrorists", etc. etc. for years on end, sometimes I just want to see someone set aside intelligence, balance, subtlety, etc. and just unleash some ugly, nasty vitrol right back at them. You know perfectly well that De Palma knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that every Bill O'Reilly out there would react saying "these are just bald-faced lies and exaggerations! manipulation! what an absurd depiction of the troops! evil, evil film!"
But that's exactly the way I feel when I listen to someone like O'Reilly defend the war. Just this once, it's nice to see someone give it right back to them.
Also, word up on the short cuts back-n-forth. If I felt it necessary to see everything I'd get soured quicker. It's part of why I don't try to see everything. But sometimes I get the urge on a Monday afternoon to walk over and see The Mist because my friend told me Andre Braugher is in it. The movie wasn't all that great but it wasn't all that bad, either. It was a fun little missive of a piece of writing, like a short cut, as best as I can manage now. Meh. I look forward to your essay on the PTA picture. Best.
You are the best film critic writing today. Your intellectual depth and obvious love for the cinema are nearly unrivaled by other critics. Who the fuck can honestly say Ed doesn't like movies? I just spent today reading nearly every single one of his reviews for Luis Bunuel movies, and I was enthralled. He has the film background and understanding of what makes a film great, that I fear most of his colleagues are sorely lacking. Take a look at his Top 10 lists, from 1910-Present. It is the single most informative and useful film guide I have ever come across.
Just because this has been a year without a single masterpiece (I would argue for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN) doesn’t mean that a film critic should lower his standards to accommodate it. I would be disappointed if Ed flung a 4-star review at a movie if he didn’t think it deserved it. Head over to Roger Ebert’s website, and you’ll see over 30 4-star reviews, ranging from RENDITION to MICHAEL CLAYTON to AMERICAN GANGSTER. Ebert is a fine writer, but he’s lost his ability to decode the difference between mediocrity and greatness. Ed still possesses this quality, and as long as he does, I will read every single review he writes. You haters can get the fuck out.
Clayton
"The performances are phenomenal across the board: Robbins never contrives schmaltz from his character's arrested development; a haunted Marcia Gay Harden, as Dave's perpetually frazzled wife, brings to mind a soul lost in limbo; and Penn's hurt is sure to bring Academy voters to tears."
As far as Redacted, I really hate to agree with Armond on this one but...he's right enough that I'll forgive the baiting parentheticals about how liberals hate to consider soldiers are capable of doing the right thing in Iraq.
Also, as Greg pointed out....is there still plans for a second entry of the 100 essential films?
Well, I loved Mulholland Drive and most of Lynch's work, but I absolutely despised Inland Empire. I hope I can help explain why.
The short smartass answer is that Inland Empire was shot in digital video instead of film, but there are stronger implications to this than the mere aesthetic. Ever since Twin Peaks Lynch has gradually become more an L.A. filmmaker than a middle-American one. Los Angeles has replaced "Missoula, Montana" as the principal source of all his creative energy. Things came to a head with Inland Empire.
I got the impression watching the film that if you were to cut David Lynch open now, you'ld find nothing but gears and wires. There are no guts anymore. He's ceased to be a biological creature.
Mulholland Drive was about The Movies, but Inland Empire is about film and filmmaking. He seems to have lost all connection with the ephemeral and left behind this unwatchably ugly post-modern stew of signs and signifiers. The Persona homage has to be one of the saddest and most horrifying things I've ever seen in a David Lynch film. The question is no longer "Is this a dream?" (as it usually is in Lynch), it's "Is this a film?"
Maybe the reason I hate the film is because I have a fundamental fear of film theory. I'm afraid that it eats away your soul. That if you get too much of it and learn to see things that way, you'll no longer see art (meaning some kind of social or moral position) you'll just see elemental compositions.
Alex: I diagree with you on Inland Empire but I dig your take on it...as well as share your fears of film theory.
OMV: I reviewed Silent Light during the NYFF. I didn't care for it, but I did find In the City of Sylvia pretty transcendent.
Great to know I'm not the only one who takes advantage of this incredible catalogue. Might I say it's also quite satisfying that I recognize the majority of the banner screens, though the latest one has me scratching my head.
Ed, I was readily suspicious that you'd mention three year-end westerns but left out No Country. I will assume now that the Coens' latest is either one of the year's best films or one of the year's worst. Oh I do love surprises.
Leave a comment
Please complete the form below to submit a comment on this article. A valid email address is required to submit a comment though it will not be displayed on the site.
HTML has been disabled but if you wish to add any hyperlinks or text formatting you can use any of the following codes: [B]bold text[/B], [I]italic text[/I], [U]underlined text[/U], [S]
strike through text[/S], [URL]http://www.yourlink.com[/URL], [URL=http://www.yourlink.com]your text[/URL]