Review: Shutter Island (2010)

Directed by Martin Scorsese
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Max Von Syndow
Score: 8.5 out of 10

Possible spoilers follow. If you haven’t read the book, beware.

Martin Scorsese has never made a bad film. Even his mediocre work is a step above just simply good. That’s the best way I can think to describe Shutter Island.

If you’ve read Dennis Lehane’s novel, you’ve seen the movie. The film is less of an adaptation and more of pictorial reading of the book, which is not a bad thing. It’s an excellent novel, but the twist at the end is far less fun when you know exactly what’s coming before the lights go down.

The story starts off simply enough, but progression builds its layers. Shutter Island is a small isle off the coast of Massachusetts, home to an asylum for the criminally insane. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Edward “Teddy” Daniels, an agent with the U.S. Marshall Service. Along with his brand new partner, Chuck (Mark Ruffalo), Teddy is dispatched to the island to investigate the disappearance of a patient/prisoner who seemingly disappeared into thin air.

From the moment Teddy and Chuck step off the ferry from Boston, it’s apparent something’s not right. The guards are twitchy, the patients anxious, the missing patient’s doctor (Ben Kingsley, played with his usual efficiency) elusive. The story about how patient Rachel Solando disappeared just doesn’t add up. The investigation builds, questions lead into answers shrouded in subterfuge taunting the officers.

There’s not much more I can say about the film’s plot without giving it all away, but those who have read the book know where things are leading. The film makes it easy to follow Scorsese and company down the path and, in a lesser filmmaker’s hands, the story might have maudlin and laughable. There’s an underlying chaos to the story that’s reigned in just enough so the insanity (pun intended) doesn’t overrun what Scorsese wants you to focus on at the moment. This is important because without this steady direction the film could have been an unadulterated mess. On the downside though, there’s no interpretation to the novel, which is something I would have liked to have seen. Screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis (whose resume includes the film Alexander and episodes of the new “Bionic Woman”--take from that what you will) is maddeningly faithful to the novel, which I’m not sure should really be a complaint as it’s really quite excellent, but films are not books. Books allow for the reflection of the reader; movies require some reflection by the filmmaker. That’s not here and it’s a disappointment, albeit a minor one.

The cast as a whole is excellent. DiCaprio is doing an amazing job with his career shunning the romantic comedy or action trap that would be so easy to fall into. He’s an actor’s actor with a fierce intelligence behind all his performances. Of also special note is Michelle Williams as Teddy’s deceased wife, who in brilliantly constructed dream sequences, brings to life Teddy’s destroyed psyche and brittle emotions. Without Williams’ fragile performance, the scenes simply would not have worked.

Shutter Island is a very good movie and definitely worth a look, but don’t expect one of Scorsese’s masterpieces. It’s a capable film that’s better than most, but lacking in an individual voice.

Review: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Directed by Tim Burton

Starring Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway

Score: 3 out of 10

Do you remember when Tim Burton made good movies? I do. I even remember when he made them with Johnny Depp.

Tim Burton’s take on Alice in Wonderland is a joyless affair; a wanna-be epic movie that doesn’t try nearly hard enough and ends up being quite small and insignificant.

In this “re-visioning”, Alice is played by relative newcomer Mia Wasikowska and, despite her sallow pallor that made me a bit worried she might faint, she is one of the few bright spots of this dull adaptation. Burton has revamped the basic Alice story so she is now a young woman of 20 plagued her whole life by a series of maddening dreams involving a blue caterpillar and a smiling, devious cat.

We meet grown-up Alice on the day she is proposed to by a toothy, ginger-haired lord, who has little patience for whimsy and Alice’s dreamy ways. Instead of giving the ‘yes’ her family and friends expect, Alice ditches the Duke, I mean Lord, and follows a white rabbit she sees in the garden down a literal rabbit hole to Wonderland.

Only in this version, it’s “Underland”, a twisted, faded mess of a place. Everyone seems to know Alice while the girl herself insists throughout the entirely too-long film that this is only a dream. Had she actually been delusional, the movie might have turned out a sight more interesting.

It’s these little tweaks to the basic story (i.e. Wonderland v. Underland) that seem to pass as a re-visioning for Burton, but instead the effect adds to the film’s overall misdirection. Throughout the story is rudderless; there are hints of something different that never really materializes beyond sight gags and some truly perplexing dialogue. The original magic of the story is lost in the translation.

And then there are the performances.

With the exception of Wasikowska and Crispin Glover as a creepy one-eyed black knight (yes, he’s typecast, but I am so happy to see Crispin getting into mainstream film again), everyone else is, at best, middle-of-the-road save Johnny Depp and Anne Hathaway, who are truly awful.

Depp plays the Mad Hatter with glassy eyes and a level of faux insanity that isn’t interesting; it’s embarrassing and uncomfortable to watch. Depp’s Hatter could literally be dropped into a film about crack addicts and would make as equal, or perhaps, more sense. There’s little doubt that Depp is a talented, enthusiastic actor who tries to bring something unique to every role. Sometimes, though, someone needs to tell him no.

As the White Queen, Hathaway emotes and poses. Granted there isn’t a lot of depth to the character, but Hathaway is little more than a living doll. Perhaps that’s what Burton wanted, but compared to Helena Bonham Carter’s fiery and emotional sister, the Red Queen, the White Queen comes off like a plastic person on lithium.

It’s as if Burton and crew wanted to make a much darker and more interesting movie (think: American McGee’s Alice), but were forced to work within the confines of a Disney PG rating and all the mediocrity that comes with it. "Alice in Wonderland", like "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", is, ultimately, something of a horror story and in both cases, Burton’s take is right at the edge of stepping into the darkness, but ends up trading what could be a fascinating, more layered take into something vapid and thoughtless.

Alice in Wonderland isn’t unwatchable, but it's close and, certainly, a big disappointment.

WoW Guilds: A recipe for dysfunction? Or a symptom of a bigger problem?

A break from the movies.

I play World of Warcraft known as WoW among it's 10+ million strong player base. My druid has existed since a week or so after release in 2004 and, since then, I've expanded my stable of characters with a shaman (who I love), a warlock (it's fun to blow others up....), and a lonely death knight, who like Rodney Dangerfield, just can't seem to get any respect.

Anyone who knows anything about WoW knows that players work together to accomplish big goals, namely slaying not-necessarily big, scary, or slimy bad guys who hit hard and drop shiny suits of armor upon their deaths. A group of players who gather together under one name is called a guild.

Starting with that druid (nope, won't tell you the name or server...don't like stalkers. I'm weird like that), I've been in a lot of guilds and, with rare exceptions, my time ended not because of something I did, but because like The Dude (see? movie reference...), I could not abide by the egos and drama that permeated every inch of the experience. But, here's the thing: I'm patient. Exceedingly so. I try to make things work even when it's apparent I should run away for my own sanity. So usually I stick it out and eventually find myself homeless.

Guilds, like any organization, company or community group, breed a certain level of dysfunction. Type "group dynamics and dysfunction" into Google and you'll get back a hornet's nest of papers yelling about how, essentially, we humans don't really work or play well together. The thing about a game like WoW is there's another layer--anonymity.

As anyone who has used the Internet knows, the ass-hat in some bubbles to the surface the minute they plop themselves down in front of a computer screen. This behavior even has a name: "online dis-inhibition effect." Basically, people forget social norms and, either consciously or subconsciously, decide real world rules don't apply to the Internet even though the people they're interacting with virtually are real, flesh-and-blood humans they would never treat so poorly if they were standing in front of them.

For me this all relates to WoW in a very real way. I've been lied to, ditched, gossiped about, and--in one distinct act of wonderfulness--had a picture of real-life me taken down from a guild website and used to make fun. It all started when I defended the raid leader and used a big word to do so. Apparently real English scared the guy and the only thing he could think to do was pull the photo and make fun of my abundant (fill-in-the-blank). Seriously. I'm guessing mom's basement, too.

This all leads me to my current predicament, which is no one's problem but my own, but this is my blog so I can write what I want. Ah, the Internet. You cruel mistress.

So I'm guild-less. It all started six or so months ago when the guild I had been in for over two years fell apart. The guild leadership gave us a speech one day about how they had no time to raid regularly (fine, thanks for the update) but we would still be setting stuff up as a guild from time-to-time. Needless to say, they disappeared. No further word. People started leaving in exodus. Friendships we had formed either didn't matter or deteriorated in the name of those virtual shiny suits of armor.

I eventually gave up the ghost and moved on only to find that "online dis-inhibition effect" is alive and well all over the WoW-verse. I can handle the random people, those I group with once and never see again, but the guilds I joined were worse. From being simply unfriendly to downright intolerable, my guild experiences have been miserable.

You wanna know the root of the problem? It boils down to good ol' fashioned communication. In this day-and-age as we have more and more ways to stay in touch, we've fallen out of touch. We don't know how to talk to one another anymore. I've found guild leaders who have my in-game character names, email, IM address, and phone number and still can't manage to drop me a line to let me know what's going on when they know I have a question or concern. Say 'Hi' during a random dungeon and most don't respond, while others are so shocked someone is actually talking that it takes them a second to fumble a reply. People are openly rude or vulgar when something doesn't meet their liking because, you know, being civil takes too much energy. Guilds will often communicate with a core group, but ignore the needs/questions of the many. And all this bad behavior is for what? The aforementioned virtual, shiny suits of armor. Basically, crap that just don't matter.

To be sure, Wow is a microcosm of a wider problem. We've lost the ability for reasonable, intelligent conversation. All anyone has to do is turn on the evening news and see health-care legislation opponents and proponents yelling at one another with bad facts and language that would make my mother blush. Maybe it is the Internet's fault. I'm not saying we were once a wholly rational people, but it seems at one point spirited, informed debate was preferred over flaming the opposition. Between our Blackberries, iPhones, multiple email addresses, IM accounts, blogs that cater to any opinion, 24-hour news sites that give little real news, Twitter, Facebook, and lord knows what else, we seem to think communication is supposed to be a few snippets of info that solely focuses on the individual. I would argue (and I am!) that these devices and ways of "communicating" have made us more self-centered (and we really were, as a species, doing pretty well in this regard) and less capable of empathy. We don't realize that the people behind those devices are actual people, or at least we're less aware of it, in the pursuit of whatever the variant in our lives is of "virtual, shiny suits of armor." I don't know, I'm thinking the "prize" of human compassion, understanding, and intellectual curiosity is more appealing.

So, yeah, I'm guild-less, but the experience has been a fascinating, albeit frustrating, one. It has made the "shiny suits of armor" in all areas of my life seem less appealing. Made me even more aware of the real people who play the game and who exist in the world who don't seem to realize that the universe, shockingly, doesn't revolve around them. While I'm more cynical, I don't know if that's a bad thing. I mean, for one, I've always been pretty cynical, but it certainly puts things into perspective. Short term gain doesn't mean much if you leave your dignity at the door and are so apathetic to the human condition that posting on Facebook about what you had for lunch is more important than exploring the world outside your own comfortable sphere. We're a fast food, celebrity-driven culture ignorant to current events and real facts beyond sound bites and suffer a proclivity to look down on people who are thoughtful. I'm not saying that's everyone or even a majority, but it's certainly the message our media and we as a people are fostering.

What does it all mean? This post started about me talking about WoW and has come to waxing on about the human condition and attitudes in 2010. For me, this awareness means that I am loathe to ever choose "shiny suits of armor" in any facet of my life if it means stepping over someone else. It means making an effort to communicate as succinctly as possible and never letting "I" become more important than whatever community I find myself in. I will also always feed my intellectual hunger, never allowing myself to starve on ignorance and hate because it happens to fit into my goals.

The irony is the paragraph above, in this new world, would probably seem arrogant to some. We have been taught to believe that we have to take care of ourselves first and any deviation on that (even if it's just education for education's sake) is bad and counterproductive. Excuse my French, but that's bullshit. We are tribal; this as-of-late focus on complete self-interest and whatever our "shiny suit of armor" is will do one thing: cause us as a people to wither on the vine.

So, make a pledge to be nice to someone today. And while you're at it, readjust what "nice" means. It doesn't mean anything material. Give a smile. Instead of sending that email; walk over to your co-workers desk. Don't Facebook about your evening plans; invite your friends along. Don't buy into a point of view because someone told you to; find out what's going on for yourself. We can be a better people, but it starts with being a better person.

Ok, I'm off to see Shutter Island and Hot Tub Time Machine. Reviews coming soon!

Review: Green Zone (2010)

Directed by Paul Greengrass

Starring Matt Damon, Brendan Gleeson

Score: 10 out of 10

In this day and age, as people are yelling epithets that would have been embarrassing just a few years ago and seemingly rational people think bringing sidearms to healthcare rallies make sense, it’s hard to believe a movie like Green Zone was given the green light. While the trailers make the film look like an action extravaganza reuniting Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass (It’s Bourne 4!), Green Zone is actually a smart political thriller about the current Iraq war.

Matt Damon is Roy Miller, nicknamed “Chief”, an officer in the U.S. Army who leads a team charged with hunting down weapons of mass destruction in the early days of the conflict. There’s just one problem: while he and his men risk their lives at every location, the intel is simply no good. Site after site, more evidence mounts that makes it clear the information the Army is receiving is not reliable.

Miller voices his concerns and, while shut down by a commanding officer, is approached by a CIA operative (Brendan Gleeson, who does smart and disheveled better than few others) who agrees with the assessment. That’s what makes Miller go off-script following a lead by a staunch nationalist, who may not like the American presence, but appreciates that it put an end to Saddam’s reign of tyranny.

What follows is an indictment of corrupt politicians and the media. Greengrass, through a script written by Brian Helgeland (based on a book by Rajiv Chandrasekaran), pieces together a scenario where key decision-makers within the U.S. government manipulated, distorted, and, often, outright, lied about intel to make it fit the goal of invading Iraq to usurp Saddam from power. Then it adds the media as a cherry on top of the war sundae, indicting them for believing the dish as presented, never invoking the age-old reporter’s brand of inquistiveness.

To be sure, none of the story is true except for the bare edges. (Although maybe it is....) That mere fact though doesn’t make the film any less enjoyable as a taut, unapologetically-intelligent political thriller of the kind we rarely see anymore. Some (see Fox News) have described the film as anti-American. Not so. There was once a time in this country when bringing to light corrupt leaders or lying politicans was celebrated. Now it’s seen as disturbingly anti-American if said-politician endorses your point-of-view.

And that’s why I’m shocked Green Zone ever saw the light of day especially with its $130 million price tag. It’s a well-acted, sharply directed, engrossing film that dares to point to current world events and America’s place in them and ask, “Why?”

Review: The Informant! (2009)

Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Starring Matt Damon, Scott Bakula, Joel McHale
Score: 6 out of 10

In 1992, executive Mark Whitacre told a lie that snowballed into the collapse of the biggest international price fixing scheme in history.

That sentence describes Steven Soderbergh's The Informant! tells but yet doesn't describe the incredibly true story at all. You see, Whitacre (played by Matt Damon in the film) was an elusive fellow who wasn't exactly in touch with reality, yet by all accounts was one of the most important and effective whistle-blowers of all time. While serving as a top-level executive with the biggest food additives manufacturer in America, Whitacre shared the company's illegal price-fixing practices with the FBI. All the while Whitacre had his own embezzlement scheme going and, somehow, believed the downfall of the company's top executives would secure his place as CEO.

Soderbergh's film is based on the book of the same name by New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald and while it follows the basic story there's just too much insanity to pack into a two-hour movie. It feels like pieces are missing and they are. Some of this is made up for by voiceovers throughout the film by Damon's Whitacre--these bon mots provide a view into this very strange man's self-absorbed and not terribly logical mind.

On some level it also helps that Soderbergh and his screenwriter chose to position the story as a comedy: doing otherwise would have clearly put a spotlight on the portions of the story that didn't make it to the screen. Also, it's easier to laugh at the situation (and, to be sure, the story is strange and funny on its own) than dive deeply into the intentions or compunctions of such a curious individual.

Check out Eichenwald's book if you're interested in the whole story. (NPR's "This American Life" also did a great episode about the case a few years back.) But, if you're not particularly interested in the details, The Informant! is a nicely done, watered-down version.

Review: Crazy Heart (2009)

Directed by Scott Cooper
Starring Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Robert Duvall, Colin Farrell
Score: 8 out of 10

In the vein of Tender Mercies and A Star is Born, Crazy Heart features an Oscar-winning performance by Jeff Bridges as Bad Blake, a washed-up, bloated, alcoholic country star on his journey to the bottom. During his tour circuit of dive bars and bowling alleys filled with fans who are just as wistful for their youth as Bad, he meets a pretty young small-town reporter (Gyllenhaal) who, despite her better judgment, takes up with Bad just as he is given the shot again at stardom he so desperately craves. There's one catch: he'll have to put his ego aside and accept help from his now super-star famous protege Tommy Sweet (Farrell).

The thing about a movie like Crazy Heart is it lives and dies on its performances. So much so one bad apple can ruin the entire film. With the exception of a sometimes shaky Gyllenhaal (and to be fair, my issues are more with how her character was written than with her actual performance), Crazy Heart is  excellent all-around (including Duvall as Bad's best friend and bartender). While I would have loved to have seen Bridges' earn some Oscar-love for The Dude oh so many years ago, the little statue he received at this year's shindig was well-deserved.

On top of that, the music is quite good. Bridges and Farrell do their own singing in the film and they're both surprisingly great. The movie's theme song "The Weary Kind" won the Academy Award for Best Song and, while the competition wasn't stiff (more songs by Randy Newman? Really?) it more than deserves the accolade.

While Crazy Heart doesn't offer much new in the story department, it's a quiet, adult-minded film with excellent performances--off stage and on--that's a rarity to find these days playing alongside big-budget extravaganzas at the local multiplex.

Review: The King of Kong (2007)

Directed by Seth Gordon
Starring Steve Wiebe, Billy Mitchell
Score: 10 out of 10

In 1982, a teen named Billy Mitchell earned the highest score ever in the video game Donkey Kong.

In 2005, Steve Wiebe, a recently laid-off Boeing engineer, took the title via videotape from his garage in Redmond, Washington.

And, thus, begins The King of Kong: a truly wonderful, touching and unexpected documentary.

It's that videotape--the one Wiebe used to present his high score to Twin Galaxies, the governing body of such things--that drives Kong. But I'm getting a little ahead of myself. You need to meet Billy and Steve. This is their story and they are the story.

You know those guys who sit around talking about the "good ol' days"? The ones who think that just because, say, they caught the game-winning pass in high school that they, somehow, are the best today? That's Billy Mitchell. Not to say he hasn't done anything with his life: he's the owner of Rickey's Hot Sauce and seems to do quite well for himself. Granted, he doesn't look like he's bought new clothes since 1987 and has a well-coiffed 'do the leader of a hair band would covet. Oh yeah, and he's a douchebag. I usually like to be more nuanced in my descriptions, but, no. He's just a douchebag.

The Yin to Mitchell's douche-y Yang is Steve Wiebe. A family man who lost his job on the day he and his wife signed the papers on a new home (Off-topic: I had something sort of similar happen to me and I can tell you--it sucks.), Wiebe is quiet and driven. He takes up Donkey Kong in his increased spare time determined to be maybe not the best, but, at least, as good as he can be. See, Wiebe is the kind of guy who's pretty good at a bunch of stuff, but has never been really great at one thing. Using his engineering skills (not to mention the hand-eye coordination he picked up as a drummer) Donkey Kong gives him his shot.

I can't say much more about the film's story without giving it all away, but suffice to say, The King of Kong unfolds as a slow-burning battle between two men who want to be the best at, of all things, an almost 40-year-old video game. Yes, it's all kinds of geeky, but the doc is shot in such a way that it becomes a real story with heroes and villains (guess which one Mitchell is? BTW--the director of the film says Billy-boy is a way bigger prick than is shown in the film).

Wiebe just wants his shot; his chance to prove he can be the best. It's impossible not to root for the down-on-his-luck engineer (who turns science teacher during the course of the film) who doggedly pursues his dream, traveling across the country to confront the naysayers and go joystick-to-joystick with Mitchell.

Mitchell is scared of being de-throned. That's the only explanation I can come up with for his behavior. This is a man who has built his life, his reputation on this one moment so much so that his friends and his parents--despite the fact that he owns a successful business--hold his Donkey Kong record up as his crowning achievement. It's sort of heartbreaking really. Not enough for me to excuse Mitchell's antics, but enough to make me go from cringing to yelling to, finally, just feeling sorry for the guy whenever he came on screen.

The King of Kong is an excellent little documentary. No matter how you feel about video games and the people who play them (and all the possible stereotypes and quirks are on display here), it's impossible not to get sucked into The King of Kong; into the battle for supremacy that has taken over the lives of two very dedicated men.